Health Care Reform Bill

From Defending Conservatism Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This legislation, online here was originally authored in 2009-10 in response to the stalemate over Obama care passage. Intended as a pro-life alternative, it would provide basic universal coverage for all while leaving the private sector intact to provide more advanced niche care. The most recent 2017 update has been embedded below.

This proposal is now superseded by my newest recommendation, use of Health Savings Accounts in conjunction with Direct Primary Care or Fee-for-Service arrangements. See Political Reforms#Healthcare


The Vital Healthcare Act as it was then called would reduce spending by avoiding the expensive middleman that is the insurance industry by using a block grant process, paying hospitals to provide care directly. To avoid the problems of inefficiency, poor quality, and overspending associated with bureaucratic employees paid regardless of performance an innovative system imitative of the free market would be created.

By using voting machines in hospitals with patient cards similar to Canada's CareCard patients can more rapidly be admitted and upon leaving provide voting feedback about their experience. Then higher rated hospitals receive more funding and stay in the system.


To ensure only U.S. citizens are covered, a similar identification process to that required of prospective U.S. Census Bureau employees would be mandated. See Section 201(b). Provision of one document from List A or List B and another from list C of the U.S. Census Bureau's BC-170D form will be needed to prove citizenship.

Four Principles[edit]

In defining what should and should not be considered basic Healthcare and covered accordingly I defined four key principles:

No Fault[edit]

High-risk lifestyles such as smoking and alcohol are controllable and their consequences should be borne by individuals, not society. If people want to engage in reckless, irresponsible lifestyles that is their right so long as they only harm themselves, but they should responsibly pay for the healthcare associated with their stupid choices.

Essential Rights[edit]

Taxpayer-funded healthcare should only cover basic inalienable rights, first life, then liberty, and finally the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare based upon individual1 choices, as opposed to inalienable rights, e.g. cosmetic surgery and abortion, should be paid for by individuals not taxpayers, for with choices should come responsibilities.

No Harm[edit]

Healthcare that harms the inalienable rights of others apart from their consent, most notably the right to life, should not even be legal, and certainly not paid for by taxpayers. Abortion is an obvious example. For purposes of the bill, the U.S. Government will error on the side of caution when potentially taking another human being's life, with the burden of proof on the side of the party seeking to potentially infringe on another individual's inalienable right to life that according to the Declaration of Independence is dependent on the Creator and dependent on no other individual's opinion or desire for said individual.

Efficiency and Consistency[edit]

Essential services must have a proven track record in providing measurable, consistent, and curative gains in the quality of societal health. Rarely tested drugs of dubious, highly varying, or ill-tested effect, or whose outcome is difficult to quantify, e.g. many anti-depressants, are not reliably effective enough to merit taxpayer subsidy.

Tort Reform[edit]

Shared Liability in Medical Lawsuits Based on Doctor Hours Worked[edit]

To better protect doctors from overwork, which leads to malpractice lawsuits, thereby driving up the cost of healthcare coverage, doctors found guilty of malpractice are to have the court expenses shared by the hospital for which they worked based on hours worked the week of the malpractice incident. If they worked at least 60 hours the week of the incident, the hospital is to cover 5% of the malpractice court costs, and an additional 5% for each additional 5 hours worked during the week of the incident.

Losing Parties in Medical Lawsuits Pay Other Party's Court Costs Up to $5,000[edit]

As a deterrent against frivolous lawsuits, losing parties in medical lawsuits should be required to pay the other party's legal fees, up to a maximum of $5,000.

Work Hour Restrictions[edit]

Doctors and residents should be restricted to 16-hour shifts, and anyone found guilty of coercing them to work longer hours will be subject to a $10,000 to $100,000 fine and up to one year in prison.