I'm a Hardcore Capitalist, Yet Medicare for All Represents the Best Hope for US Health System

Deductibles. Preferred providers. Non-preferred providers. Premium health services. Personal healthcare costs. Co-payment. Shared insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. ACA. HMO. PPO. Exclusive Provider Organization. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. HSA. FSA. HRA. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. SHOP. Individual coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? It's understandable. Who comprehends all this stuff? Certainly not the average entrepreneur. Nor the typical worker. Selecting the right healthcare insurance for companies – or for our families – appears to require demands a PhD in healthcare.

Our Healthcare System Is More Than Complex, It Is Expensive

According to a recent study, typical households spends $twenty-seven thousand each year on medical coverage (up 6% compared to last year). Typical employer health insurance cost is expected to surpass $seventeen thousand for each worker by 2026, an increase of 9.5% from 2025.

Currently federal operations is shut down because political disagreements regarding subsidies that experts say could cause premium increases up to 100% for numerous US citizens.

When Might We Seriously Consider National Health Insurance?

How soon might we seriously consider universal healthcare coverage in the United States? I have to believe we're approaching that point because this can't continue.

I'm not proposing national healthcare. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare program – an insurance system – simply expand to cover everyone. Our infrastructure doesn't change. How medical professionals receive payment changes. Believe me, they will adjust.

How National Health Insurance Could Function

A national health insurance program would need contributions from employees and employers. In comparable systems, a worker making average wages must contribute approximately five point three percent toward medical coverage. Their employer must contribute about thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear like a lot? Unless you compare that with what the typical US resident spends. I can name multiple clients that are routinely paying between eight to fifteen percent of their employee wages to their healthcare costs. Remember that in comprehensive systems, those payments also cover retirement benefits, sick pay, maternity leave and unemployment benefits in addition to funding healthcare facilities. When you add those costs versus what we pay for our retirement plans, unemployment insurance and vacation benefits, the difference decreases.

Execution for America

For America, a national health premium would increase our Medicare tax deduction, a framework that is already in place. It ought to be means-based – wealthier individuals would pay more than those earning less. This includes both worker and employer contribution. And, like much of our government's defense, IT, social programs and infrastructure, the system should be outsourced by private contractors instead of federal agencies.

Benefits for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program would be a significant advantage for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would place small companies in equal competition against big corporations who can afford superior coverage. It would make management significantly simpler (automatic payroll withholding remitted like retirement and healthcare taxes, instead of individual transactions to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would make it easier for us to budget our yearly costs, rather than going through the complicated (and fruitless) theater of negotiating with major insurers required annually every year. Because it's simplified, there would exist improved comprehension about benefits by our employees – as opposed to the current system where they have to interpret the complications of current options. And there would certainly be reduced responsibility for employers since we wouldn't would be privy to workers' medical records for weighing risks and different options.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as capitalist as possible. However I recognize that government play important functions in society, including national security to supporting needed infrastructure. Ensuring medical coverage for everyone through a national insurance system enhances economic foundations. It represents superior, easier system for small businesses which hire more than half of American employees and fund half of our GDP. It makes it possible for workers to be healthier, come to work more often and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Exist numerous factors I haven't covered? Certainly. But with rising medical expenses we've seen in recent years, it's clear that the Affordable Care Act is not working effectively. And I realize that we're not a compact European nation where major reforms are easier to implement. But expanding universal Medicare, despite increased taxation required, would still be a superior and more affordable approach both for managing medical expenses but providing access to everyone.

Need for Honest Assessment

As Americans, must tone down our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. The US places significantly behind many other countries with the best healthcare in the world, according to major studies. Maybe one positive aspect amid present circumstances could be that we undertake serious examination in the mirror and acknowledge that big changes are necessary.