🔗 Share this article As a Hardcore Free-Market Advocate, Yet Medicare for All Represents the Best Hope for US Health System Deductibles. In-network. Non-preferred providers. Concierge medical services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. POS. High Deductible Health Plan. HSA. Flexible Spending Account. 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. Choosing the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for our families – appears to require it requires advanced expertise in healthcare. The Medical System Is More Than Complicated, It's Costly According to a recent study, typical households pays $twenty-seven thousand annually on medical coverage (up 6% from last year). The average employer health insurance cost is projected to surpass $17,000 for each worker in 2026, an increase of 9.5% from 2025. Currently federal operations has ceased functioning because political disagreements regarding tax credits which analysts predict could cause a doubling of premiums for numerous US citizens. When Will We Seriously Consider Universal Healthcare? When will we genuinely evaluate a national health insurance program in the United States? I have to believe we're approaching that point because this can't continue. I'm not suggesting national healthcare. I'm advocating that our already existing Medicare system – an established insurance framework – merely extend to include all citizens. Our infrastructure doesn't change. The way our healthcare providers get paid would change. Believe me, they will adjust. How Universal Coverage Could Function Universal healthcare coverage would need contributions from employees and employers. In comparable systems, a worker earning moderate income pays approximately 5.3% toward medical coverage. Their employer pays about 13.75%. Does this seem like a lot? Unless you contrast it to what the typical US resident spends. I know multiple clients who are routinely paying anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs to their healthcare costs. And keep in mind that with comprehensive systems, those payments also cover pension plans, illness coverage, parental benefits and unemployment benefits in addition to funding medical services. When you add these expenses compared with our current spending for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the difference decreases. Execution in the US In the US, a national health premium would increase existing Medicare taxes, a system that is already in place. It should be income-adjusted – wealthier individuals would pay more than lower-income earners. This includes both an employee and employer contribution. And, like much of our government's military, technology, welfare services and infrastructure, the system should be outsourced to third-party administrators instead of a government office. Benefits for Entrepreneurs A national health insurance program represents a significant advantage for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would place small companies in equal competition with our larger competitors who can afford superior coverage. It would make administration much easier (automatic payroll withholding remitted like social security and healthcare taxes, rather than individual transactions to insurance companies and coverage administrators). It would make simpler for us to budget our yearly costs, rather than going through the complex (and ineffective) process of negotiating with major insurers that we must do each year. Because it's simplified, there would be a better understanding of coverage among workers – contrasted with existing arrangements which require them to decipher the complexities of existing plans. And there would certainly be reduced responsibility for companies as we no longer have access to our employees' health histories for purposes of risk assessment and different options. Free-Market Viewpoint I'm as pro-market as they get. However I recognize that government play important functions in society, from providing defense to supporting essential systems. Ensuring medical coverage to all via universal healthcare strengthens economic foundations. It represents superior, easier system for entrepreneurs that employ the majority of American employees and fund half the economic output. It enables for workers to be healthier, have better attendance and be more productive. Addressing Concerns Exist a million considerations I haven't covered? Of course there are. But with rising medical expenses experienced recently, 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 are easier to implement. But expanding Medicare for all, despite the additional taxes required, would still be a superior and less expensive strategy both for controlling healthcare costs but providing access for all citizens. Need for Honest Assessment As Americans, must reduce national pride. America's medical care isn't exceptional. We rank well below numerous nations with the best healthcare globally, according to major studies. Maybe one bright spot amid current situation could be that we take serious examination in the mirror and agree that major reforms are necessary.