Ready.
An infirmaze-fund (with an infirm-reaction) is fitting, when the concern is about a potential infirmity (a possible costly, "bad chance," in a negative-lottery sense):
An infirmazer-people may even further reduce the cost, as a big-buyer, as they may
Whatever type of risk-reduction is needed, an infirmaze framework may fit it (cf. an insurance policy), if there are enough people, who want to infirmaze around that fund-framework. Any person may infirmaze through many of them. e.g: An infirmaze for diabetic people, or an infirmaze for people with CHD. There is no limitation about type, or amount (for whatever type) of the infirmaze-varieties.
A FAFFI (for-any/for-first infirmaze) framework is a buffer for unexpected problems. And they may foster a fine, fit-and-healthy-living regime/recipe, too - good nutrition, keep fit, etc. e.g: If Mr.A is an infirmazer with a FAFFI, he may have his regular-testing there, and when/if any major infirmaze-framework (e.g: CHD) is indicated, then he may infirmaze with that, too - right away, in an early phase.
If it is already too late to get accepted to any of them, at least until the imminent operation is over, then his FAFFI is to pay for it. i.e: The risk that a FAFFI does accept is the risk of payment, until the infirmazer is accepted to a fitting area-framework.
If the more thoughtful people really face&pay less cost, an infirmaze-fund may reflect that, i.e: Level-by-level, people may differentiate themselves, with affinity, to accept people who resemble themselves, and let others to another infirmaze-fund.
It is familiar. For example, an enforcement of moderated-eating (for an acceptance to that infirmaze-fund that you would like to), would resemble the weight-watchers. An infirmaze-fund people may reflect about their affinities, as related to an illness, when they draw the boundaries. e.g: Is there an obesity-to-cancer link? If no, they neglect it.
There is really room for mobility, preference, and optimism.
For an infirmaze, the infirmaze-people in a field/area may consider until/at what phase of a problem/disease, it is fine to let a new infirmazer in. After that phase, if they accept him/her, it is their sadaqa (for sewab), or a foundation may pay it. e.g: An infirmaze, with a framework around CHD (chronic heart disease) may
i.e: They may want to have a chance to act. e.g: Even if the person is already diagnosed CHD, if they are optimistic that their diet/food and other preventive medicine acting may avoid the surgical-operation, they may want to accept him/her to their infirmaze. They may infirmaze with him/her for CHD.
If it is too late to get in, and if that person is not even with a FAFFI, then it is the question whether other people (or, a foundation) may donate, to pay it. Although it is not guaranteed at all, a help-to-the-needy, is well-known, and it is favored by Allah.
If to extend welfare to the needy (i.e: when without money, too), people may pay the fee of a needy, found a foundation, or donate time-to-time. Or, at least, every muslim who has a wealth above a limit, must every year pay a zekat, to the needy people. Although people may do these themselves, they may affirm a rep, too. Avoid charlatans, though. Verify that your intention is realized.
An infirmazer-fund is a right way to donate. For example, if any fund may found itself around an expected keeping-fine level, there is no difference, whether the fee is paid by the person, or donated. i.e: Even the poor people may do sth. for themselves, as they may keep-healthier, with a keeping-fine, e.g: avoid cigarette, etc. There are probably two kind of people, who may prefer differently, when they donate
To pay the fee of the healthier-living people is to maximize welfare, with the fixed amount of money, as the fee is (probably) less for them - as probably they do not get operated, to the level of the less-healthy.
There are mainly four-types of risk, that I reflect about. Most real-world cases of (a potential) infirmity may resemble these (popular example cases).
If your father was diabethic, you should keep watchful about it, for yourself, too - as it is probably irreversible (yet). An infirmaze-fund, or a few, may help.
If a problem (with a dormant, possibly genetic, diathesis) is triggerable by stress, precaution may pay. e.g: schizophrenia is known to develop with stress, although it is genetically-tipped. Appreciate warmth of a family, and friendly-people.
low-risk (not frequent and/or not lethal), and low-cost treatment. Quite-safely, you may neglect these, until ill, and get a herb-drink, or an over-the-counter pill, when ill. Fine-living may avoid even that. e.g: An-apple-a-day, instead of a pill-when-ill.
The accidents that may need a surgical-operation, are the prime examples. e.g: If there were a car-crash. An infirmaze-fund (probably, a FAFFI), is there, for it. A finer move, is to foster fine-health, and to reduce any risk. e.g: To lower the probability of accidents, and/or to have an air-bag for your vehicle.
high-risk (very prevalent, and/or non-remedial) - whether high-cost, or not. e.g: old-age. Those who mind it, may improve/keep their health, (relatively) fine, with a few good rules-of-thumb. e.g: Drink milk, walk (mild muscle&bone-work), eat avocadoes, think (puzzle-, or do computer-programming, etc.) against Alzheimer.
The problems which existed in 2002. The Cost, "to Avoid Cost," in an Ex-State, need not co-exist with the insurance function. People may do it themselves, readily - as this page pointed out. An insurance-corp may transform itself, too, though. If it was a more thoughtful variety (e.g: foster-health, to reduce cost), then it may act as an infirmazer-rep, to improve an infirmaze-fund, with the extra. Any infirmaze-fund (in any risk-area), may work with a few of them, for what they may each (differ&) render.
There are infinite varieties of medical-achievement, little-by-little, with a med-ed - whether to heal-thyself, or to get paid.
2002. Craving $Health, in an Ex-State.