Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Non-preferred providers. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Co-payment. Co-insurance. Insurance consultants. Coverage agents. Healthcare consultants. ACA. HMO. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. POS. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. SHOP. Individual coverage. Family coverage. Premium tax credits.
Confused? You should be. Who understands all this stuff? Not the typical entrepreneur. Neither the average worker. Choosing the right medical coverage for companies – or for households – appears to require demands a PhD in healthcare.
Our Medical System Is More Than Complicated, It Is Costly
Based on recent research, the average family pays $27,000 annually for their health insurance (up 6% from last year). The average company healthcare expense is projected to exceed $seventeen thousand per employee by 2026, a 9.5% jump from 2025.
Currently federal operations is shut down because partisan disputes over tax credits that experts say could cause a doubling of premiums for numerous US citizens.
When Will We Seriously Consider National Health Insurance?
When will we genuinely evaluate a national health insurance program in the United States? I'm convinced we're approaching that point since this situation is unsustainable.
I'm not suggesting national healthcare. I'm proposing for our current Medicare program – an established insurance framework – simply expand to cover everyone. The existing system doesn't change. The way our healthcare providers get paid would change. Trust me, they will adjust.
The Way Universal Coverage Would Work
A national health insurance program would require contributions from both workers and companies. In comparable systems, an employee making average wages must contribute about five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company must contribute about thirteen point seventy-five percent.
Does this appear like a lot? Not if you compare it to what average American pays. I know dozens of businesses that are easily contributing between eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs to their healthcare costs. Remember that in comprehensive systems, these contributions include retirement benefits, illness coverage, maternity leave and unemployment benefits along with funding medical services. When you add those costs versus what we pay on retirement programs, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the difference decreases.
Implementation in the US
In the US, universal healthcare funding would raise our Medicare tax deduction, a system already established. It ought to be means-based – wealthier individuals would contribute higher amounts than lower-income earners. There would be both worker and employer contribution. And, like many our government's military, IT, social programs and transportation services, the program could be managed to third-party administrators instead of a government office.
Advantages for Entrepreneurs
A national health insurance program represents a significant advantage for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would put small companies in equal competition with our larger competitors that can pay for better plans. It would make administration much easier (automatic payroll withholding remitted like retirement and healthcare taxes, rather than individual transactions to benefit firms and insurance providers).
It would enable simpler to plan expenses our yearly costs, instead of going through the complex (and ineffective) process of bargaining with the big insurance providers that we must do every year. Because it's simplified, there would be improved comprehension about benefits by our employees – as opposed to existing arrangements where they have to interpret the complexities of current options. Additionally there would certainly be less liability for companies as we no longer would be privy to workers' health histories for risk assessment and alternative plans.
Free-Market Viewpoint
I'm as pro-market as possible. However I recognize that government has a significant role in our lives, from providing defense to supporting essential systems. Ensuring medical coverage for everyone via universal healthcare strengthens our economy's infrastructure. It represents superior, simpler approach for small businesses that employ the majority of American employees and fund half of our GDP. It makes it possible employees to be healthier, have better attendance and be more productive.
Addressing Concerns
Are there numerous factors I'm not addressing? Of course there are. Given all the healthcare cost increases we've seen in recent years, it's evident that current healthcare legislation isn't functioning very well. And I realize that we're not a compact European nation where big changes can be readily adopted. However extending Medicare for all, despite increased taxation that would be incurred, would remain a better and less expensive strategy for not only managing medical expenses but providing access for all citizens.
Time for Realistic Evaluation
We as Americans, we need to reduce our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't so great. The US places significantly behind many other countries with the best healthcare globally, according to comprehensive research. Perhaps a positive aspect in this present circumstances is that we undertake a hard look in the mirror and agree that major reforms need to happen.
