As a Hardcore Free-Market Advocate, Yet Universal Medicare Represents the Optimal Solution for US Health System

Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Benefit advisers. Insurance brokers. Healthcare consultants. ACA. Health Maintenance Organization. PPO. Exclusive Provider Organization. POS. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. Flexible Spending Account. HRA. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. SHOP. Single coverage. Dependent coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Baffled? It's understandable. Who understands this complex system? Not the typical business owner. Nor the typical employee. Selecting the appropriate medical coverage for our business – or for our families – seems like it requires advanced expertise in medical insurance.

The Healthcare System Is More Than Complex, It Is Costly

According to a recent study, typical households spends $27,000 annually for their health insurance (increasing by 6% from last year). Typical employer health insurance cost is expected to exceed $17,000 for each worker in 2026, a 9.5% jump compared to 2025.

Now the government is shut down because partisan disputes over subsidies which analysts predict could cause premium increases up to 100% for numerous US citizens.

When Might We Truly Examine Universal Healthcare?

When will we seriously consider a national health insurance program in the United States? I have to believe we're approaching that point since this situation is unsustainable.

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 remains intact. The way our healthcare providers receive payment would change. Believe me, they'll adapt.

How National Health Insurance Could Function

Universal healthcare coverage would need payments from employees and employers. In similar programs, a worker earning moderate income must contribute about 5.3% to their healthcare. The company pays approximately 13.75%.

Does this appear expensive? Unless you compare it to what average American pays. I know dozens of businesses who are easily contributing between 8% to 15% of payroll costs to their healthcare costs. And keep in mind that with comprehensive systems, those payments include retirement benefits, sick pay, maternity leave and unemployment benefits along with funding medical services. When you add those costs versus our current spending for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the difference decreases.

Implementation in the US

In the US, a national health premium would increase existing Medicare taxes, a system already established. It ought to be income-adjusted – wealthier individuals would pay more than those earning less. This includes both an employee and company payments. Similar to many federal defense, IT, social programs and transportation services, the program should be outsourced by private contractors instead of a government office.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program represents a huge benefit for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would put us on a level playing field against big corporations that can pay for better plans. It would make administration significantly simpler (automatic payroll withholding processed similarly to retirement and healthcare taxes, instead of individual transactions to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would make it easier to plan expenses annual expenditures, rather than going through the complicated (and fruitless) 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 – contrasted with existing arrangements which require them to interpret the complexities of current options. Additionally there would definitely exist reduced responsibility for employers since we wouldn't have access to our employees' medical records for purposes of weighing risks and different options.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as pro-market as they get. But I've learned that public institutions has a significant role in society, including national security to funding needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare for everyone through a national insurance system enhances economic foundations. It represents superior, simpler approach for entrepreneurs that employ the majority of the country's workers and fund half the economic output. It enables employees to be healthier, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Considering Challenges

Are there a million considerations I haven't covered? Of course there are. But with all the healthcare cost increases experienced recently, it's clear that current healthcare legislation isn't functioning effectively. I understand that America isn't a compact European nation where major reforms can be readily adopted. But expanding Medicare for all, despite the additional taxes required, would still be a superior and more affordable approach for not only managing medical expenses but providing access to everyone.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

We as Americans, must tone down our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't so great. We rank significantly behind many other countries in healthcare quality in the world, according to comprehensive research. Maybe one positive aspect amid present circumstances is that we undertake serious examination in the mirror and agree that major reforms are necessary.