Reforming American Healthcare Act

 Resolved by the United States Congress (both houses concurring therein) that the following be made into a persistent law of the United States:

Reforming American Healthcare Act

Long title: Fiscally responsible healthcare for all Americans 

The following law is defunded (no further money may be spent from the U.S. Treasury nor may money paid to the U.S. government be used to fund the execution of the following law): the Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590 passed to become Public Law 111-148).

This Act requires all funding to permanently stop for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

This Act requires all federal funding of Medicaid to permanently stop.

This Act requires all federal funding of Medicare Part C (otherwise known as “Medicare Advantage”) to permanently stop.

(This rule replaces the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s requirement for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate health insurance plans establish clear statements of benefits:) 

1. Insurance companies of all types are prohibited from requiring their customers (defined for this purpose as an individual human being who pays money out of that individual human being’s wages on a regular basis (such as monthly or annually, etc) to that insurance company) to use any other system for arbitrating claims than a jury trial before a judge in the court that is most local to the residence of that customer (the customer shall have free choice as to the venue in whether to use a federal district court or a state court or a court set up by a local government or a tribal court, where the judgement entered into by the jury shall be treated as binding before any other federal court, who shall not redo the trial).
2. An insurance company shall be held liable for the crime of “fraud” if it fails to pay the expenses of a customer where those expenses fall into the commonly expected costs that form of insurance is generally expected to cover according to the rules of standard English as understood by a randomly selected jury of 12 American citizens. After a civil fraud lawsuit is won against an insurance company in the court chosen by the insurance company’s customer, the U.S. District Attorney for the District in which that victim lived is required to file a criminal complaint against the insurance company, with the specific obligation to put in prison for exactly 6 years (without parole) whichever person can be found at that insurance company who made the decision to not pay the claim to the insurance company’s customer. If such a decision maker at the insurance company cannot be found, then whichever manager was responsible for keeping track of which employees were making that decision must be imprisoned for 6 years (without parole) for the crime of destruction of evidence. If such a manager cannot be found who would have responsibility for keeping track of those employees who make the decisions to pay claims or not, then the manager or corporate executive responsible for managers in that state must be imprisoned for 6 years (without parole) for the crime of “conspiracy to commit fraud”.
3. “Healthcare insurance” companies (company or corporation that a random jury of 12 American citizens (who are literate to an 8th grade reading level or higher) are willing to swear and testify of it “that is a healthcare insurance company”) are required publicly document on a clear website (a “clear website” is one that an American citizen can reach by typing in the commonly known name of the specific healthcare insurance company into a search engine, with a url beginning with either http://www. Or https://www. ) (1) the “monthly premium” required of customers in order to maintain their insurance (where paying that amount per month guarantees coverage by that insurance company for as long as the insurance company doesn’t go bankrupt), (2) the “maximum out-of-pocket expense per day” (where a customer cannot be required to pay more than this amount in a given day (note: this amount of money is required to include any “deductible” and “coinsurance” based calculations of paying extra for more expensive care, but this amount doesn’t include the monthly premium)), (3) the “maximum out-of-pocket expense per year” (where a customer cannot be required to pay more than this amount in any given calendar year starting January 1st; this value shall include all extra money that could be required under “coinsurance” based calculations, and this amount of money does include the monthly premiums (since that is part of the overall amount of money a customer could expect to spend in a given year)), (4) which hospitals and doctors and imaging centers and laboratories are “in-network” for that healthcare insurance company, (5) the “out-of-network discount percentage” establishing the percentage reduction in the price of care the customer is entitled to when receiving services from a hospital or doctor or imaging center or laboratory that is not “in-network”, where the healthcare insurance company agrees to pay the rest of the cost, (6) the minimum yearly salary that insurance company is paying to every in-network doctor or nurse, (7) the amount of money the insurance company held in liquid assets as of 1 AM on January 1st of that year which they promise to only use for paying healthcare claims of patients (excess money of that fund in one year must be rolled over to the next year, and 30% of the premiums paid by customers of the insurance company must go into that fund).
4. The only differences allowed between insurance plans offered by one single healthcare insurance company must be constrained to which hospitals and which doctors and which imaging centers and which laboratories are “in-network” for that insurance plan.
5. Healthcare insurance companies are required to pay 50% of all the monthly premiums they receive as salaries of the doctors and nurses of in-network hospitals and independent doctor offices that are in-network. Doctors and nurses that do not receive that pay shall have a cause of action in court to sue the healthcare insurance company for wage theft (with the same rights as any other employee in that state to sue their employer for wage theft).
6. Chiropractors, homeopathic practitioners, tribal remedies, midwives, and any person promoting the use of a substance or implant that has not been tested (for efficacy and safety to resolve a sickness or injury or prevent a sickness or injury) and published and peer reviewed in a  medical journal (and not retracted) does not qualify to receive any money from a healthcare insurance company. A customer trying to use a chiropractor or homeopathy or tribal remedies or a midwife or some treatment that is not shown as safe and effective in a peer reviewed medical journal, and who tries to force their insurance company to pay for the treatment via a court case, that customer can ask for a U.S. federal district judge to summarily order “the case __(case number)____ against ____(Healthcare insurance company name)_____ is ordered to be dismissed with prejudice because the treatment the customer ______(name of customer)____ was demanding on ___(date of filing of other case)_____ through a court was not at all required to be covered as per the 6th list item in the Reforming American Healthcare Act.”
7. The only evidence that may be used in court for proving that an offense occurred under this Act must be from an alleged action occurring after January 1st of the year following the year in which this Act was passed into law.
8. (This is counted as a Congressional amendment to the procedures and limitations of Appellate jurisdiction; Congress has the right to make this rule via Article III Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2, after the third comma) Instead of the Insurance Company appealing a civil fraud case, the Insurance Company can ask a U.S. District Court judge for a restraining order on a medical company or healthcare worker collecting money if the amount of money charged (above $100,000) seems unreasonable based on the available evidence of (1) what other doctors and hospitals charge for the same care in that state, (2) the scope of changes the patient’s body needed for recovery, or (3) (if the amount charged is above $1) the patient in question does not have a current outstanding contract with the healthcare insurance company (such as by not paying the monthly premium, or not being accepted as a customer of that healthcare insurance company). This recourse is not available if the civil fraud case against the healthcare insurance company brought by their customer was brought in a U.S. District Court.
9. If a judge in a state court, local court or tribal court oversees convictions of an insurance company for fraud where the evidence in a pattern of the cases points to those claims by the plaintiffs being fraudulent, the Insurance Company may hire their own lawyer to prosecute that judge in the relevant U.S. District Court starting with a public Grand Jury trial to secure an Indictment against that judge based on the evidence of (in the minds of the jurors) a sufficient number of fraudulent cases (which were victorious for the plaintiff) to show a pattern of the judge failing to defend “true justice”. If the Indictment is successful, the Insurance Company’s appointed Prosecutor can start the actual jury trial for that Indicted judge in the U.S. District Court after fulfilling their obligations to inform that Indicted Judge of the time and venue of the case. If the jury in the actual trial agrees to convict the Indicted Judge, then the U.S. Bureau of Prisons shall contract with the Insurance Company to imprison the convicted Judge for a number of years consistent with the amount of money the Insurance Company pays the Bureau of Prisons (which is charged based on the current amortized annual cost of the Bureau of Prisons holding any given person as a prisoner).

This Act shall be funded on a persistent basis from the date of passage, at an assumed annual value of $660,500,000,000 (in the case of the tax revenue generated being less than $660,500,000,000, the shortfall is accounted for by reducing the payouts into the accounts of Americans, and secondarily by reducing the amount used by the Federal Reserve for running the debit card system to $2 billion if the amount available from this tax revenue falls below $50 billion), albeit that the first year of the operation of this bill is funded by a direct appropriation from the General Treasury of $660,500,000,000. The relevant new taxes (which must be collected by the Internal Revenue Service and put into a separate RAHA account that funds this bill, and these new taxes must be published clearly onto the Internal Revenue Service website and in the tax forms Americans normally fill out) are:

1. If you (or the entity you are filing taxes for (referred to as “you” for simplicity)) make property (that you own or have a controlling interest in) available to a person or entity (the “renter”) for a fixed regular price (as opposed to a one-time fee), and that person or entity vacates the premises (or “hands back the keys to the landlord” in modern parlance, if not literally), but that renter still “owes money” or is told to “pay a fee” (or similar remuneration) to the owner of the property or the person or entity with a controlling interest in the property, 50% of that remuneration must be paid as a tax to the IRS, and the owner of the property or the person or entity with a controlling interest in the property cannot raise the amount owed or fee charged (or whatever remuneration) on account of this tax. (i.e. the person or entity charging any form of back rent or inspection fee or whatever must “eat the cost” of the 50% tax on that back rent or inspection fee.)
2. If you (or the entity you are filing taxes for (referred to as “you” for simplicity)) make property (that you own or have a controlling interest in) available to a person or entity (the “renter”) for a fixed regular price (as opposed to a one-time fee), and the fixed regular price is amortized to greater than $770 per month for each person who is generally present on that property long term on behalf of the renter, then you must pay a 50% tax to the Internal Revenue Service on the rent you receive, as well as, if you have raised the rent in the previous 730 days, an additional 1% of the total rent is charged as tax owed to the Internal Revenue Service for each 1% the rent has increased on a monthly (amortized) basis relative to the amortized monthly rent charged on that same property (regardless of whether or not the renter is the same person) between 730 to 365 days prior. This is known as a “tax on high rents.”
3. If you (or the entity you are filing taxes for (referred to as “you” for simplicity)) make property (that you own or have a controlling interest in) available to a person or entity (the “renter”) for fixed regular price (as opposed to a one-time fee), and that renter is removed from the property without their consent (either through being locked out of the property or getting their stuff forcibly removed or getting evicted), then you are required to either pay $384,777 as a tax to the Internal Revenue Service or enter into a debt contract with the IRS where you are required to pay $628 + (the amount of interest the U.S. government paid on bonds that year)/(the face value of all U.S. government bonds currently outstanding)*15697 each month for the next 50 years. This is known as a “tax on evictions”.
4. If you (or the entity you are filing taxes for (referred to as “you” for simplicity)) initiate a foreclosure on a property, then you are required to either pay $384,777 as a tax to the Internal Revenue Service or you must enter into a debt contract with the IRS where you are required to pay $628 + (the amount of interest the U.S. government paid on bonds that year)/(the face value of all U.S. government bonds currently outstanding)*15697 each month for the next 50 years. This is known as a “tax on foreclosures”.

The Internal Revenue Service shall receive $5,000,000,000 per year under this Act on a permanent basis in order to fund enforcement operations for collecting taxes and the salaries of their auditors.

The Food and Drug Administration shall receive $10,500,000,000 per year under this Act to hire up to 5000 lawyers and 5000 scientists in order to prepare evidence and legal briefs to present in court for the benefit of both the plaintiffs and defendants and the jurors. The FDA is also authorized to hire 5000 scientists in order to do full testing of stated claims in internationally published medical research, and, those scientists, by majority vote, may recommend criminal charges against a medical journal for publishing research that makes false claims and refusing to retract that research when the FDA scientists do their own peer review of the claims and find the research to be false. The criminal charge in question is based on that journal’s refusal to retract false research either (1) being uniquely dangerous to the safety of patients, or (2) being a conspiracy to commit fraud against a healthcare insurance company (since the false unretracted research can directly create a liability for a healthcare insurance company being pushed by a customer to cover that extra expense (of whatever treatment the article was justifying) even though the falseness of the research would betray that such a cost is unnecessary). The editor of a medical journal being found guilty of either offense by a court must spend one year and one day imprisoned.

The Federal Reserve shall establish a set of bank accounts for every U.S. citizen known to exist in the U.S. Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service database, and shall, as of January 1st of the year after this bill is passed into law, send out prepaid “Federal Reserve” branded debit cards with fields on the debit card saying “I, _________, do formally swear and testify that I will ONLY use this money for things which are medically necessary, such as doctor appointments, dentist appointments, optometrist appointments, prescription medications, or surgery. Signed, ________, So help me God.” On the back side of the card is written “do not accept this card if the name on the front of the card doesn’t match the name in the two signature fields. Do not accept this card unless the person holding it has proof that their name is the same as the name on the card.” The Federal Reserve is authorized to use  $5,000,000,000 per year to hire 1000 Computer Scientists and Computer Engineers to create a uniquely designed debit card and debit card readers that generate secure one-time codes reliably and connect to a central server at the federal reserve to authorize payments through the correct bank accounts the Federal Reserve creates for each U.S. citizen known to exist by the Internal Revenue Service. The new debit card readers must be sent out to the hospitals and doctors offices and medical imaging centers and medical laboratories around the country, and tested to make sure that inserting a debit card and typing a payment is correct each time and goes to the proper “real bank account” of the would-be recipient of the money. Those Computer Scientists and Computer Engineers are authorized to write collective resolutions, where, by 501 of them signing on to a spending agreement, an additional $10,000,000,000 is made available under this Act for hiring additional people and contracting for the actual construction and distribution of the debit cards and debit card readers, as well as to cover persistent manufacturing expenses, and up to $1,000,000,000 for testing the debit card readers (the people on the receiving end of the tests get to keep the money, no more than $100 per test at a given location per day). The remaining money appropriated in this Act (presumably $629,000,000,000) must be evenly divided between virtual accounts behind the debit cards as they are sent out to Americans at the addresses reported by the Internal Revenue Service.

Each debit card created under this bill expires on December 31st of the year in which it is mailed to the U.S. citizen it is named for. Unspent excess funds from the virtual deposit accounts (and from unspent revenue generated by the taxes in this Act) shall be redistributed evenly to all the deposit accounts (with updates of new deposit accounts for new American citizens, and removals of the accounts associated with dead Americans or Americans who gave up their citizenship), and then new debit cards shall be sent out on or before January 30th.

For doctors performing services for a patient between December 31st and February 14th, they may, with the consent of the patient (if the patient has not already received their “Federal Reserve” branded debit card), make a request to the patient’s local U.S.P.S. distribution office that “any mail being sent to <address of patient><name of patient><signature of patient><date of patient’s signature> from the Federal Reserve be sent instead to <address of that doctor’s office or hospital>, so that I may charge <total bill for the service that the patient’s insurance didn’t cover>.”

State and local governments are prohibited from taxing these debit cards. These debit cards are prohibited from being used as a security for a debt, nor may they be taken as alimony. The existence of this debit card is not considered relevant in any bankruptcy proceeding. (In other words, the fact that a person is going bankrupt (even due to medical expenses) does not permit the creditor to be paid via the debit card (unless the creditor is a medical doctor who is pursuing payment for a service he/she provided on or after January 1st of the current year).)

(The below paragraph is a fundamental amendment to general taxation authority.)

Every American citizen who is not employed as a “unique personal assistant” is now given the irrevocable right to employ one American citizen as a “unique personal assistant”, where the money that employer gives (so long as the money given does not exceed 50% of their taxable income) to their “unique personal assistant” is fully deducted from being counted as part of taxable income, including state income taxes and income taxes imposed by local governments. The “unique personal assistant” is not required to file a W-2, nor any other paperwork for receiving that money, and receives that money “tax exempt” from federal, state and local taxes, so long as that “unique personal assistant” employment is the only income that American citizen is receiving.

As a replacement for Medical Residency programs (ended with the end of Medicaid), a person who graduated from medical school and passed the state medical board’s chosen test for all would-be doctors in the state in which that person would be practicing, shall have perpetual right to be considered as a “Doctor” or “MD” if and only if that person has been employed by 4 different people who were officially considered as “Doctor” or “MD” in the year 2025 or in the previous year, and where those 4 different doctors sign affidavits, “I, ________, do swear and testify that my employee, __________, has demonstrated a good capacity to be a doctor to 100 different patients who were under my observation. Signed, __________” The title of Doctor and the title of MD shall be taken away from a person (and it shall be illegal for them to say that they are a “doctor” or “MD”, with a fine of up to however much they have charged patients in the previous year, and up to a year in prison per patient who claims injury by that so-called “doctor” or “MD”) if the state medical board finds proof of that person sexually harming a patient or causing a patient to get a debilitating infection (unless the patient was already known as significantly immune compromised, and the doctor took the standard reasonable precautions to prevent infection), or leaving a foreign object inside the patient that the patient did not specifically agree to leave in (such as a sponge left inside the patient during surgery, or an implant inserted into the wrong part of the body than where the patient wanted treatment), or causing the patient to become paralyzed (unless the patient signed a waiver understanding the risks of spine surgery and the doctor took reasonable precautions to avoid the patient becoming paralyzed). The state medical board does not need to run a trial, instead, once evidence of one of those offenses is discovered, the state medical board is required to ban that person from being called a “doctor” or “MD”, and is required to send cease and desist orders to the relevant medical staff around where that person was practicing as a doctor, and, if that person continues operating as a doctor, the state medical board is legally obliged to file relevant paperwork with the local prosecutors offices and call them to get those prosecutors to do their jobs and get a trial against the person who is unlawfully practicing as a “doctor” or “MD”. In the case of a state medical board showing a pattern of allowing more than two people in the state to call themselves a “doctor” or “MD” who have committed more than two of the above noted disqualifying offenses against patients (sexual harm, causing a debilitating infection, leaving a foreign object inside the patient except where agreed by the patient, or causing the patient to become paralyzed) a U.S. District Attorney is required to prosecute the state medical board for “breach of the public trust” and “neglect of duty”, where, on conviction, the members of the state medical board are required to pay out of their own personal assets the costs of the damages to the patients affected by the malfeasance of doctors on the third time and later there was proof available to the state medical board for the third doctor (who should have been disqualified but wasn’t) committing more than two disqualifying offenses. If the members of the state medical board run out of personal assets to pay those 3rd-order patient victims, then those state medical board members shall be imprisoned for one year for each victim of the third and later doctors (who committed more than 2 disqualifying offenses, but who were not disqualified by the state medical board) who did not receive sufficient compensation out of the personal assets of the state medical board members.

Note on funding: the writer of this Act assumes a low-end estimate of evictions (based on the study referred to by the 2023 GAO report on evictions, specifically the New York estimate) of 1.7%, and then multiplied that by an estimated number of renter households in the United States of 46 million to get an estimated number of evictions of 782,000. In 2021, there was an estimated $20 billion of back rent owed by Americans. The median rent in the U.S. is above $2000 per month, assuming that is a whole household with that rental, where the average household size is 2.6 people, that is about $770 per renter, where 50% of renters (114.4 million is the total number of renters), 57.2 million, are paying more than $770 per month (de facto), so taxing the landlords a 50% tax on the rent paid by each unit where the average rent of the people who live at that unit is greater than $770 per month de facto would generate a minimum of $262.26 billion per year in taxes (even without counting the extra taxes charged on the increases in rent). In 2022, 227,000 properties were foreclosed on. Given all that information, a 50% tax on back rent may cover $10 billion of the budget of this bill, taxing landlords for charging high rent may cover $262.26 billion of the budget of this bill. Then, to cover the last $388.24 billion of the budget of this bill, a tax of $384,777 for each person or entity evicting or foreclosing on someone, where the Internal Revenue Service shall allow each person or entity paying that tax to enter into a 50 year debt owed to the Internal Revenue Service (this debt is an asset with a face value that can be seen as covering the shortfall, and the accumulation of these debts long term will pay off the shortfall with plenty to go back into helping Americans pay for healthcare).

This Act does not authorize the U.S. Treasury to sell bonds or other debt instruments, except as necessary to cover the initial $660,500,000,000 for the first year of the operation of this Act.