I'm a Hardcore Capitalist, But Medicare for All Represents the Top Solution for American Health System

Deductibles. Preferred providers. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Benefit advisers. Insurance brokers. Medical advisors. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. POS. HDHP. HSA. FSA. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. COBRA. Small Business Health Options Program. Individual coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? You should be. Who understands all this stuff? Not the typical entrepreneur. Neither the average worker. Choosing the right healthcare insurance for companies – or for households – appears to require demands a PhD in healthcare.

Our Healthcare System Isn't Just Complex, It's Costly

According to a recent study, the average family pays $twenty-seven thousand each year for their health insurance (increasing by 6% from last year). Typical company healthcare expense is projected to exceed $17,000 per employee by 2026, a 9.5% jump from 2025.

Now the government is shut down because political disagreements regarding tax credits that experts say will lead to premium increases up to 100% for millions of Americans.

When Will We Seriously Consider Universal Healthcare?

When will we genuinely evaluate a national health insurance program here in America? I'm convinced we're getting closer because this can't continue.

I'm not proposing government-run medicine. I'm advocating that our already existing Medicare program – an established insurance framework – simply expand to cover everyone. Our infrastructure remains intact. The way our healthcare providers get paid would change. Believe me, they will adjust.

How Universal Coverage Would Work

A national health insurance program would require payments from both employees and employers. In comparable systems, a worker making moderate income pays approximately five point three percent toward medical coverage. Their employer pays approximately 13.75%.

Does this appear expensive? Unless you contrast it to what the typical US resident spends. I know dozens of businesses who are routinely paying between 8% to 15% of their employee wages for medical benefits. Remember that in comprehensive systems, those payments also cover pension plans, illness coverage, maternity leave and unemployment benefits along with funding medical services. When you add these expenses compared with our current spending for our retirement plans, unemployment insurance and paid time off, the gap narrows.

Execution for America

In the US, a national health premium would increase existing Medicare taxes, a framework that is already in place. It should be income-adjusted – those at higher income levels would contribute higher amounts than lower-income earners. This includes both an employee and employer contribution. Similar to many federal military, IT, welfare services and infrastructure, the program could be managed to third-party administrators rather than a government office.

Benefits for Small Businesses

A national health insurance program represents a significant advantage for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would place small companies in equal competition against big corporations that can pay for better plans. It would make management significantly simpler (a payroll deduction remitted like social security and Medicare taxes, rather than individual transactions to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would make it easier to plan expenses annual expenditures, instead of enduring the complicated (and ineffective) process of negotiating with the big insurance providers required annually each year. Due to simplification, there would be improved comprehension of coverage by our employees – as opposed to the current system where they have to decipher the complexities of existing plans. And there would definitely exist less liability for companies since we wouldn't would be privy to our employees' health histories for purposes of risk assessment and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as pro-market as they get. However I recognize that public institutions has a significant role 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, simpler approach for small businesses that employ the majority of American employees and generate half the economic output. It enables for workers to enjoy better health, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Are there a million considerations I'm not addressing? Of course there are. But with all the healthcare cost increases experienced recently, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act is not working effectively. I understand that America isn't a compact European nation where big changes are easier to implement. But expanding universal Medicare, despite the additional taxes required, would remain a superior and less expensive approach both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage to everyone.

Time for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, we need to reduce national pride. America's medical care isn't exceptional. The US places well below numerous nations in healthcare quality in the world, based on comprehensive research. Perhaps a positive aspect in this current situation could be that we undertake serious examination at ourselves and agree that big changes need to happen.