A Better Medical System

[Michael Noire]

Here I propose a streamlined medical system.

First, it allows all organizations such as churches and community centers to achieve tax exempt status for operating as a medical aggregate charity center where fees covered by the institution exceed quarter or annual property tax, depending on the form they fill out.

So for instance, if you had a small community center with an annual property tax of $2000, if that institution donated $2000 or more dollars to its local community's medical fees, or $500+ per quarter, it will achieve the goal of it's tax exempt status.

Property is a common aspect of most institutions such as churches and this allows the institutions to scale as a Franchise, where your organization might have 32 buildings, but only 5 of them are operating under Tax Exemption for providing charity to cover medical needs. This also allows small family businesses to operate out of their homes with a streamlined economic taxation model.

The purpose of setting up this institution network option is to provide stopgap measures or a safety net for the second part of the plan.

Second, a private medical savings account and flat monetary allotment is set up for every citizen. As time builds up without incident, the account builds up. The patient simply accesses the account to purchase anything ranged from Breast Implants and Reconstructive Dental to Open Heart Surgery, Cancer Medications, or delivering a baby. If the patient cannot afford the medical bill, they may check with the Better Business Bureau for price gouging, extortion, or fraud, and seek recommendations for more realistic price models at home or abroad. It shall be illegal to apply any taxation on the import or export of medical procedures, medications, or accoutrements where patients are seeking medical assistance. In other words, if you fly to Israel to get fitted for a new prosthetic leg, or because you order or purchase some pain killers from Canada and are returning across the border, you shall not be charged additional fees or taxes on those products designed to ensure your continued health and well being.

When the account is dry, its dry, like a debit account. Additional excesses may be paid out of pocket or with regular debit or credit cards. This dry account is recharged like the Electronic Bank Transfer (EBT) cards are currently replenished for people on Food Stamps.

In order to get a charity institution to cover excess fees, the 0 balance account of the patient, valid membership or paper work indicating membership or community affiliation (which in the case of a community center might just be a library card, whereas with church it might be a baptism record or similar certificate of membership), and the medical fee papers themselves must be presented. The institutions use the photocopies for their records which helps keep them tax exempt. The institutions also use the 0 balance proof of the patient to prevent fraud and reduce exploitation of the institution.

Third Businesses with employees may set up union or corporate benefit packages where additional donations or salary percentages are placed in their employee savings accounts, which may provide these capitalistic institutions with tax breaks (but not necessarily total tax exempt status).

Fourth Rules similar to criminalization of the dictionary definition of Usury need to be codified and then active, massive litigation and possible jail sentences need to be considered for abuse of the medical establishment at all levels where prices abuse the citizens. The two terms applicable in the theory are Usury and Monopoly.
If a pill costs 22 cents to manufacture and it is profitable to the maker to sell it at 33 cents, charging $280+ for a 30 pill supply shall be rendered illegal abuse of power and exploitation. Competition shall be encouraged and celebrated, monopolization of human life shall come with a prison sentence. Assets shall be seized where mortality rates increase as a consequence of abuse of bottle necking the patients to justify driving up prices, for instance. Seized assets shall be reissued to research and development to help reduce overall costs associated with high priced pills and lab equipment.

I think the way the establishment currently is, there are plenty of deaths and evil corporations to gut to considerably reduce the costs of R&D, although anarcho capitalists might find this concept horrifying.

Final Points
This system is not perfect. I can see flaws and exploitation already possible with it. I can see people complaining. But I believe this system is far more sustainable and reasonable and free than the current medical systems in place.

[conconconcrete wall]

I like it!

[The20]

Michael Noire

I can see people complaining.

People complain about absolutely anything.

Putting that aside, i'm not sure what to think of this. To be honest it sounds like a surefire way to bankrupt people with chronic illness or people that got involved in bad accidents (whether it was their fault or not), even more so than the current system (if that is even possible).

[Michael Noire]

The20

Michael Noire

I can see people complaining.

People complain about absolutely anything.

Putting that aside, i'm not sure what to think of this. To be honest it sounds like a surefire way to bankrupt people with chronic illness or people that got involved in bad accidents (whether it was their fault or not), even more so than the current system (if that is even possible).

Darwin.

But that aside, if one person costs the country $10 million in medical fees, that's $10 million that could have gone to vaccinate a whole ******** city from something that could actually kill them all. I know its a populist statement to make and contrary to my own view that each and every person is potentially worth all the lives in the world - but I put Steps 1 and 4 in place for a reason.

Step 4 should help reduce the $10 million medical fees to something more reasonable, like maybe $500,000 or even $50,000, and Step 1 should ensure that if a community organizes to save someone, that person's bill can be covered.

When my grandfather was on a lung machine, it was a church that paid for it even till his death. This was back in the early 80s, but it at least illustrates the model can work.

[Lightning the Lulu]

I admit I did not read the entire first post. I stopped at "churches" because there is no way I can agree to religious institutions getting any more tax breaks than they already do, and religion has already demonstrated that it does not play fair when it comes to individual's health care decisions. Just look at the moron who owns Hobby Lobby or any foaming-at-the-mouth "pro-lifer" screaming outside Planned Parenthood.

No thanks.

[Conservatism]

The Legendary Guest

I admit I did not read the entire first post. I stopped at "churches" because there is no way I can agree to religious institutions getting any more tax breaks than they already do, and religion has already demonstrated that it does not play fair when it comes to individual's health care decisions. Just look at the moron who owns Hobby Lobby or any foaming-at-the-mouth "pro-lifer" screaming outside Planned Parenthood.

No thanks.

It isn't the company controlling their employees healthcare decisions, its actually the other way around.

[Lightning the Lulu]

Conservatism

The Legendary Guest

I admit I did not read the entire first post. I stopped at "churches" because there is no way I can agree to religious institutions getting any more tax breaks than they already do, and religion has already demonstrated that it does not play fair when it comes to individual's health care decisions. Just look at the moron who owns Hobby Lobby or any foaming-at-the-mouth "pro-lifer" screaming outside Planned Parenthood.

No thanks.

It isn't the company controlling their employees healthcare decisions, its actually the other way around.

You want to make that ridiculous claim? Start a thread for it and don't derail this one. I won't be participating or even giving it a moment's consideration.

[Inscriven]

HDHI health plans with HSA accounts already exist like you mentioned in your second point. It comes with some major problems though. Those plans are only good when the person is very healthy, never seeks preventative care, and is an upper class high income earner who can make their deposits return more per month than what you'd pay under a traditional health plan. It is not feasible for middle to low income earners because you will simply never make enough to keep you alive should you go downhill.

Bringing down healthcare costs is really going to boil down to the obliteration of the health insurance industry. It is one of the major reasons why costs are driven so high because they are the middle man taking a piece of everything. When hospitals look to recouperate costs, the inusrance company will only pay a portion of it. So prices get raised in order to compensate. The system is so entrenched that all billing is assumed to be paid by insurance companies and not by self. A 30 minute visit to the ER for me with basic bloodwork costs $7-8000. The company I work for will read basic x-rays for $10 each. The consumer pays something around $300.

Capitalism isn't going to solve everything, and it sure as hell isn't going to help a system that is designed to help humanity by profiting off it's suffering. And this system you're proposing is presuming there's a lot more money going around then there really is. And if any system has a "******** you" clause when people need it most, it's a broken system.

It's good to discuss options though, but I feel the libertarian perspective of Charity fixing everything is not one ground in reality. People won't donate if they don't have to. Companies will not pay costs they don't have to. When people need help they should not have to beg when we have the collective power to bring costs down. Costco all the ******** things.

[Yoshpet]

Michael Noire

The20

Michael Noire

I can see people complaining.

People complain about absolutely anything.

Putting that aside, i'm not sure what to think of this. To be honest it sounds like a surefire way to bankrupt people with chronic illness or people that got involved in bad accidents (whether it was their fault or not), even more so than the current system (if that is even possible).

Darwin.

stare

[Suicidesoldier#1]

The problem with cost typically goes more so along the lines of manufacturing and labor, as well as design, which requires skilled labor, like a Doctor or nurse. Some pills costs .02 in material to make, but the research, building the factory, manning the factory with people with medical or chemistry degrees, all who have high wage costs, all who have irreplaceable skills, who are trained specifically to produce these kinds of medicine, who designed the medicine and did testing under very strict standards and so on, are all very expensive.

You don't exactly take away that cost.


Then there's customer figures.

If you have 1 million customers, and you spent 1 billion dollars developing your cure or pain medicine or what have you, you would need 1000 dollars per customer just to compensate for the base cost of the research. Yeah. Fewer customers = higher costs. It's possible that many things like HIV cures could be subsidized, in that they have this base cost taken care of and then they can sell the medicine at cost, or slightly above that for a profit, but just saying they have to sell it for cheaps despite all the other money, research, and time they put into it is just stupid; it will discourage innovation and likely bankrupt most these major businesses.


Something like HIV would be hard to cure/prevent. It would take billions of dollars; then you realize that only so many people have it, so the cost will go up per person, since you have a specific and diminishing market. Subsidizing it with the government would spread these costs over everyone, essentially, rather than just making a single individual pay for it.

This should lower costs and make the drugs widely available, and thus in addition to the subsidization would require/allow for regulations reducing the price of the medicine and creating a price ceiling, which is now possible. So, yep.

[conconconcrete wall]

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with cost typically goes more so along the lines of manufacturing and labor, as well as design, which requires skilled labor, like a Doctor or nurse. Some pills costs .02 in material to make, but the research, building the factory, manning the factory with people with medical or chemistry degrees, all who have high wage costs, all who have irreplaceable skills, who are trained specifically to produce these kinds of medicine, who designed the medicine and did testing under very strict standards and so on, are all very expensive.

You don't exactly take away that cost.


Then there's customer figures.

If you have 1 million customers, and you spent 1 billion dollars developing your cure or pain medicine or what have you, you would need 1000 dollars per customer just to compensate for the base cost of the research. Yeah. Fewer customers = higher costs. It's possible that many things like HIV cures could be subsidized, in that they have this base cost taken care of and then they can sell the medicine at cost, or slightly above that at a profit, but just saying they have to sell it for cheaps despite all the other money, research, and time they put into it is just stupid; it will discourage innovation and likely bankrupt most these major businesses.

Booooooo, get outta here.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

conconconcrete wall

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with cost typically goes more so along the lines of manufacturing and labor, as well as design, which requires skilled labor, like a Doctor or nurse. Some pills costs .02 in material to make, but the research, building the factory, manning the factory with people with medical or chemistry degrees, all who have high wage costs, all who have irreplaceable skills, who are trained specifically to produce these kinds of medicine, who designed the medicine and did testing under very strict standards and so on, are all very expensive.

You don't exactly take away that cost.


Then there's customer figures.

If you have 1 million customers, and you spent 1 billion dollars developing your cure or pain medicine or what have you, you would need 1000 dollars per customer just to compensate for the base cost of the research. Yeah. Fewer customers = higher costs. It's possible that many things like HIV cures could be subsidized, in that they have this base cost taken care of and then they can sell the medicine at cost, or slightly above that at a profit, but just saying they have to sell it for cheaps despite all the other money, research, and time they put into it is just stupid; it will discourage innovation and likely bankrupt most these major businesses.

Booooooo, get outta here.

Science, facts, logic, are scary bro D:

[conconconcrete wall]

Suicidesoldier#1

conconconcrete wall

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with cost typically goes more so along the lines of manufacturing and labor, as well as design, which requires skilled labor, like a Doctor or nurse. Some pills costs .02 in material to make, but the research, building the factory, manning the factory with people with medical or chemistry degrees, all who have high wage costs, all who have irreplaceable skills, who are trained specifically to produce these kinds of medicine, who designed the medicine and did testing under very strict standards and so on, are all very expensive.

You don't exactly take away that cost.


Then there's customer figures.

If you have 1 million customers, and you spent 1 billion dollars developing your cure or pain medicine or what have you, you would need 1000 dollars per customer just to compensate for the base cost of the research. Yeah. Fewer customers = higher costs. It's possible that many things like HIV cures could be subsidized, in that they have this base cost taken care of and then they can sell the medicine at cost, or slightly above that at a profit, but just saying they have to sell it for cheaps despite all the other money, research, and time they put into it is just stupid; it will discourage innovation and likely bankrupt most these major businesses.

Booooooo, get outta here.

Science, facts, logic, are scary bro D:

You suck!

[The Herald of War]

conconconcrete wall

I like it!

You like the idea of people with chronic illnesses being in perpetual poverty or dead?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

conconconcrete wall

Suicidesoldier#1

conconconcrete wall

Suicidesoldier#1

The problem with cost typically goes more so along the lines of manufacturing and labor, as well as design, which requires skilled labor, like a Doctor or nurse. Some pills costs .02 in material to make, but the research, building the factory, manning the factory with people with medical or chemistry degrees, all who have high wage costs, all who have irreplaceable skills, who are trained specifically to produce these kinds of medicine, who designed the medicine and did testing under very strict standards and so on, are all very expensive.

You don't exactly take away that cost.


Then there's customer figures.

If you have 1 million customers, and you spent 1 billion dollars developing your cure or pain medicine or what have you, you would need 1000 dollars per customer just to compensate for the base cost of the research. Yeah. Fewer customers = higher costs. It's possible that many things like HIV cures could be subsidized, in that they have this base cost taken care of and then they can sell the medicine at cost, or slightly above that at a profit, but just saying they have to sell it for cheaps despite all the other money, research, and time they put into it is just stupid; it will discourage innovation and likely bankrupt most these major businesses.

Booooooo, get outta here.

Science, facts, logic, are scary bro D:

You suck!

Quite well I've been told. wink

Wait, no. sweatdrop