Medishield life premiums to increase/ made compulsory to help SG govt save money?

[PainRack]

Medifund is an instrument created to give the illusion that healthcare bill will remain affordable.

If it requires you to bankrupt your immediate family before you can access the money, then how can you call the healthcare bills "affordable"?

You ask again why I say you live in fantasy world?

Medifund is an instrument that's supposed to ensure that everyone is able to receive healthcare. If you can't afford to pay your bills, then there a last resort fund that help ensure you receive some form of care. It has nothing to do with keeping healthcare bill affordable, just ensuring that even if you exhaust your finances, someone will pay for something.(The scale and scope between effective/efficient and etc is another topic altogether)


Now, I entirely understand that there is a difference in language, infact, I usually bring up the point.

When Minister Khaw claims that healthcare is affordable, he's talking about the costs. And its true, healthcare bills in general ARE affordable. The median hospital bill in Singapore is 1.5 thousand, census data shows that medical spending for household is 4%, and the GDP COSTS is 4%, only 2% of patients or so require assistance to help pay for bills and we can compare the costs of healthcare spending or bills to other countries. Even rises in medical inflation is relatively constrained.

However, when we citizens talk about affordability, its take on different connotations. Its about spending one day pay to see a specialist. Its about spending one month savings to get a outpatient radiological scan. Its about the size of the bills relevant to our pay.


And that's a huge disconnect and indeed, the issue of intergenerational spending is a problem down the line. Holding down 'costs' itself will require significantly more radical changes to our system, and it might not be one that our system can adapt in time.For example, its much better to have people stay at home instead of in institutional care. Hence, the whole talk about 'right sizing' patient care. People live longer, they have better quality of life. So, there's a whole slew of resources being thrown into allowing people to stay at home, from incentives for relatives to stay close together, elder flats, lift landing, domestic maid levy.... BUT. All of this requires that there's an actual caregiver available to take care of the person.
Which our society is inevitably destroying because you need a double income household to meet financial costs in Singapore. Not to mention training and etc........



It doesn't help that people simply don't see the issues involved. Again, case in point, 4% GDP. People think this shows our government is spending too little on healthcare. No, it isn't. It shows that healthcare costs relative to the scale of our economy is low, when we link this to the healthcare effects we have, such as one of the world lowest infant mortality rate and etc, its a GOOD thing that its only 4% of GDP.


However, there is a difference between ignorance and sheer fantasy and idiocy. Yours? Its crossing the line.

 

[PainRack]

Thoughts of a non-communist compulsory membership system.

Cherry6 feels that this discussion is getting too heated and wonders if the root of the problem is really being solved- that is why same age for same age, more people are expected to be diabetic in 2050- -

Have you ACTUALLY read the article or the presentation involved?
To put it simply, there are 3 factors for the predicted rise in diabetes.
1. An irreversible rise in age.
2. A reversible trend if obesity rates remains the same or rise.
3. Increasingly early onset of diabetes in age.

It then targets the potential rises such as the easy availability of palm oil, of changes in dietary and exercise habits.

None of this are actually EASY to change. And the fact that Singapore already has 11% as diabetics, the highest compared to the OECD countries showcases the pending costs.

Is it because diagnosis techniques have gotten better, or because our lifestyles have gone down the drain due to work stress to buy a bigger and more expensive house and car to show off.

Or how about both and more?
We know that almost 50% of diabetes had their diabetes undiagnosed according to the HPB.
https://www.nrdo.gov.sg/uploadedFil... 20111103 Diabetes Information Paper 2011.pdf

But of course, you're still using the same old morality card, that its a 'person' fault if they have diabetes.
Nevermind that the risk factors are systematic and can only be changed with a concerted effort by society, such as encouraging healthy eating by reducing the amount of sugar and fat in common meals, the restriction in portion controls as seen in fast food, the healthier eating initative where the government encouraged hawkers to adopt more healthier cooking alternatives despite the potential hit in customers....

and that the total bill for medifund last year was only like $100M (587,000 approved claims), of which just the foreign worker Levy's would cover the medifund payouts 40X over, so cherry6 wants to be sure that it is only the poor who are really being helped.

And which has nothing to do with Medifund because Medifund is its own investment fund where the interest is used to pay off claims, the government occasionally tops up the capital fund and etc but its still using interest to pay the claims.

Hmmm..... So, how could we change this? How about....... socializing the costs by increasing government funding to Medifund? But wait, didn't you JUST reject socializing Medishield to pay for Medifund?

If obesity, the lack of exercise and consequent diabetes is due to work stress, then cherry6 would like to know if adding the burden of higher (/COMPULSORY) medishield payments would make life even more stressful and unhealthy for Singaporeans, considering that just 2.5% of the annual foreign worker levy collections could double such payouts for needy Singaporeans- whilst the middle income should seriously be encouraged to keep fit.

Ah right. So you're going to reverse the rise in eating out for Singaporeans, something that Singaporeans increasingly do due to rise in income, convenience and time?
So, you're going to make Malays abandon their traditional diet since Nasi Lemak, Mee Rebus and etc are high in fat/sugar which has led to an increasing rise in obesity which had been linked to the reason why diabetes in Malays are rising rapidly?
So, you're going to somehow reverse the genetic impact, where the Indian community has a genetic predisposition for diabetes?
So, you're simply going to reverse the excessive consumption of meat which our improved income has led to(and which has led to superior nutrition as measured in increased height)

So.... its just all that simple?


Hey, you wanna know one interesting factor for reducing diabetes? Wealth. The richer you are, the LESS likely you are to be sick with chronic disease. The reasons why is different in each society but in this modern age, even though diabetes itself is a 'rich man disease', its also the RICH amongst us who have a lower incidence of diabetes.

Funny world isn't it?


For **** sake Cherry. Isn't it tiring to view the world through such simplistic views?

Like most Singaporeans, cherry6 doesn't mind paying more, however, cherry6 would like to see greater emphasis on work life balance, fairer property taxation, better means of reverse mortgaging HDB properties for essential healthcare, full medisave coverage for class C hospitalisations (non-cosmetic), greater availability of rental public housing to the most needy rather than HDB focus on building more ECs,

And all of this is....... already being done??!?!?!?!
The impact, especially the first is minimal but that's due to the scale and scope of the problem.

Especially since Medisave coverage...... has never been disallowed in the first place...........

 

[PainRack]

Seriously, most people I know of supports some form of Universal Healthcare, and are pretty open to more taxation to fund this. The truth is that we will use it one day, and having that assurance that we will be looked after when we are old is actually very important.

I mean, even the Chinese Govt are looking to provide social security so that the Chinese people would be more willing to spend their spare savings which will provide a boost to the economy.

There is a vocal element in Singapore that's adamant about not having more universal healthcare.

To put it simply, its akin to this. If we save enough, live wisely, we can take care of ourself when we grow old, so, why should we spend more to help 'moochers' in the system. Charity? Sure, we give charity, but I don't want to help those who are undeserving.



Its a morality play writ large. Never mind that its more effective and efficient to help everybody, whether they are moochers or not because it costs less and helps more. Never mind that we keep claiming that we're a Asian society with a more collective outlook...

Its something I always find absurd in Singapore politics discourse. We are a collectivist society, the whole Confucianism Lee keeps talking about dictates a collectivist look, yet, individualistic societies focused on the individual right to freedom in Europe and the UK has more comprehensive, collectivist healthcare and social policies than we do. So, we're literally getting all the bad with none of the good. And the thing is, we have people so invested in the system that they're unwilling to tear it down to build something new, even for those who're so opposed to the current government.

 

[sunzoner]

You ask again why I say you live in fantasy world?

Medifund is an instrument that's supposed to ensure that everyone is able to receive healthcare. If you can't afford to pay your bills, then there a last resort fund that help ensure you receive some form of care. It has nothing to do with keeping healthcare bill affordable, just ensuring that even if you exhaust your finances, someone will pay for something.(The scale and scope between effective/efficient and etc is another topic altogether)

Now I get it. You are having some serious problem reconciling the "reality" you mentioned in your post and the facts of the matter.

You are assuming that any change in medishield/medisave can help the case you mentioned in your previous post. You then assumed the policy makers will put what you thought is important and implement something which might make the case you mentioned better.

You are unable to see that the three "medi" is the pillar of the incumbent's policy. Medisave - so less payment comes out of pocket for the patient. Medishield - so patients pay the rest in advance. Medifund - so when the patient really got no access to more money, state pay reluctantly.

This three pillar will not change.

For the case you mentioned, lets think how it will help him/her...

No more medisave? medishield covers maybe a tiny amount? lets bankrupt your family before the state comes in...

Now, I entirely understand that there is a difference in language, infact, I usually bring up the point.

When Minister Khaw claims that healthcare is affordable, he's talking about the costs. And its true, healthcare bills in general ARE affordable. The median hospital bill in Singapore is 1.5 thousand, census data shows that medical spending for household is 4%, and the GDP COSTS is 4%, only 2% of patients or so require assistance to help pay for bills and we can compare the costs of healthcare spending or bills to other countries. Even rises in medical inflation is relatively constrained.

However, when we citizens talk about affordability, its take on different connotations. Its about spending one day pay to see a specialist. Its about spending one month savings to get a outpatient radiological scan. Its about the size of the bills relevant to our pay.

And that's a huge disconnect and indeed, the issue of intergenerational spending is a problem down the line. Holding down 'costs' itself will require significantly more radical changes to our system, and it might not be one that our system can adapt in time.For example, its much better to have people stay at home instead of in institutional care. Hence, the whole talk about 'right sizing' patient care. People live longer, they have better quality of life. So, there's a whole slew of resources being thrown into allowing people to stay at home, from incentives for relatives to stay close together, elder flats, lift landing, domestic maid levy.... BUT. All of this requires that there's an actual caregiver available to take care of the person.
Which our society is inevitably destroying because you need a double income household to meet financial costs in Singapore. Not to mention training and etc........

It doesn't help that people simply don't see the issues involved. Again, case in point, 4% GDP. People think this shows our government is spending too little on healthcare. No, it isn't. It shows that healthcare costs relative to the scale of our economy is low, when we link this to the healthcare effects we have, such as one of the world lowest infant mortality rate and etc, its a GOOD thing that its only 4% of GDP.

However, there is a difference between ignorance and sheer fantasy and idiocy. Yours? Its crossing the line.

Bulls right?

Your WOT fails to help your arguement. Why? who does the politicians talk to? Empty air? They talk to the people. So why they use a description or language that defines things differently? Newspeak?

The healthcare bill paid for by the state is low. But the bill paid by the citizens can be big. I nfact, low state expenditure means the citizens have to foot the rest.

Your data on GDP cost???

Healthcare Financing | Ministry of Health

The state only pays 1.4% of GDP for healthcare. So even if overall healthcare spending is 4% of GDP, its a heavy 2.6% on citizens? aka more than half the burden falls on citizens. This is ok?

The above still doesnt include people who put off medical treatment or flat refuse to go see doctor in case they need to pay the bills.

So what if the healthcare expenditure is low? if people refused to see the doctor the expenditure is low. But does this mean healthcare is accessible or even low?

I think you really need to think about the issue rather than just get your data from the news...

 

[cherry6]

We are choosing not to be healthy

We are choosing not to be healthy
FROM SANJEEV GATHANI
22November2013.
I read several articles recently, concerning obesity and the challenges facing today’s generation in maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
Given the pressures of chasing the five Cs, many of us forget that there will be no wealth without health. Even if we earn the wealth, the paradox is that we would have to pay doctors to earn our health.
The authorities have invested money and time to educate the public about adopting a balanced lifestyle. Exercise facilities and nutritional information are readily available. Yet, we choose not to take what is provided to us on a silver platter.
We make choices at every step of our lives, and we must make informed ones based on the information provided. Thereafter, we live with our decisions. No amount of advertising and education can help if one does not realise the importance of being healthy.
It is not the exterior, though, that matters. Ultimately, what matters is the engine inside that runs the body.

We are choosing not to be healthy | TODAYonline

 

[PainRack]

Now I get it. You are having some serious problem reconciling the "reality" you mentioned in your post and the facts of the matter.

Lol.

You are assuming that any change in medishield/medisave can help the case you mentioned in your previous post. You then assumed the policy makers will put what you thought is important and implement something which might make the case you mentioned better.

You are unable to see that the three "medi" is the pillar of the incumbent's policy. Medisave - so less payment comes out of pocket for the patient. Medishield - so patients pay the rest in advance. Medifund - so when the patient really got no access to more money, state pay reluctantly.

This three pillar will not change.

I actually have..... no big issues with how our system is funded, apart from a 'desired' progressive taxation on Medishield as opposed to premiums based on arcturial tables.

The things I really want however? They ARE being brought to fruit, the question is scale, scope and time. Are we doing enough, fast enough, on a large enough scale to affect the majority of Singaporeans before 2020 hits.

For the case you mentioned, lets think how it will help him/her...

No more medisave? medishield covers maybe a tiny amount? lets bankrupt your family before the state comes in...

Actually, I DO know how it would have affected him. With Medishield paying the bulk of the hospital bill, this would mean that the Medisave payments would have become much more manageable, hopefully, to the extent that his Medisave account can handle it until he passed away.

Afterall, a 1000 dollars withdrawal with a subsequent few hundred dollars per hospital visit on Medisave is a much more manageable bill than a thousand dollar bill per hospital visit.

The healthcare bill paid for by the state is low. But the bill paid by the citizens can be big. I nfact, low state expenditure means the citizens have to foot the rest.

And so? Again. Healthcare costs refer to the totality of healthcare costs on the economy. However, the definition of affordability takes on different meaning when viewed by different entities.

Your data on GDP cost???

The EXACT same website?

The state only pays 1.4% of GDP for healthcare. So even if overall healthcare spending is 4% of GDP, its a heavy 2.6% on citizens? aka more than half the burden falls on citizens. This is ok?

And the real question is, are the healthcare costs MANAGABLE. In the 2013 speech, the Minister found around 2% of patients in the system who are unable to afford the bills. That's a relatively healthy funding scenario, one that Medifund can step in to help manage.

What I would disagree with here is on the question of efficiency vs effectiveness. It might be more costly to spend more on certain things that would reduce costs down the road. Preventive care so as to speak. The prime example I always use is inhaler and spacer. If you're on public assistance, that inhaler you have is free. However, the spacer is considered a luxury item and isn't. That ultimately means that the inhaler is useless because a lot of people need the spacer to get adequate medication.

Inix and I even debated this I think...... a year ago? With Lamivudine vs Entecavir. To me, the fact that Lamivudine is effective means that it doesn't matter that Entecavir is not on the subsidized list, because people are still getting effective care, they're just not getting the BEST care. He disagrees.

So what if the healthcare expenditure is low? if people refused to see the doctor the expenditure is low. But does this mean healthcare is accessible or even low?

I suspect your definition of access is NOT the proper definition of access.

 

[PainRack]

We are choosing not to be healthy | TODAYonline

I'm sorry, but you trying to find someone else to echo your viewpoint does not make it a valid policy item.

Your viewpoint just smacks too much of the 'its their own fault' mentality. Its people fault for being poor. Its people fault for falling sick. Its people fault for......


In other words, too much moral play, too little action.

I think you think you're trying to say that people should be empowered to take ownership and care of their own health, but your words are throwing out an entirely different vibe altogether.

 

[Inix]

Inix and I even debated this I think...... a year ago? With Lamivudine vs Entecavir. To me, the fact that Lamivudine is effective means that it doesn't matter that Entecavir is not on the subsidized list, because people are still getting effective care, they're just not getting the BEST care. He disagrees.

And I still disagree today . I still think we all deserve the best care, rather than adequate care.

But Lamivudine vs Entecavir is yesterday liao lah. The better medicine is now Tenofovir , which is STILL unsubsidised. Oh well

 

[cherry6]

Perhaps property tax should increase to subsidise healthcare costs a bit (more).

Perhaps property tax should increase to subsidise healthcare costs a bit (more).

Thread source: Medishield life premiums to increase/ made compulsory to help SG govt save money?
You ask again why I say you live in fantasy world?...

Now I get it. You are having some serious problem reconciling the "reality" you mentioned in your post and the facts of the matter.
You are assuming that any change in medishield/medisave can help the case you mentioned in your previous post. You then assumed the policy makers will put what you thought is important and implement something which might make the case you mentioned better.
You are unable to see that the three "medi" is the pillar of the incumbent's policy. Medisave - so less payment comes out of pocket for the patient. Medishield - so patients pay the rest in advance. Medifund - so when the patient really got no access to more money, state pay reluctantly.
This three pillar will not change.
For the case you mentioned, lets think how it will help him/her...
No more medisave? medishield covers maybe a tiny amount? lets bankrupt your family before the state comes in... ...
Bulls right?
Your WOT fails to help your arguement. Why? who does the politicians talk to? Empty air? They talk to the people. So why they use a description or language that defines things differently? Newspeak?
The healthcare bill paid for by the state is low. But the bill paid by the citizens can be big. I nfact, low state expenditure means the citizens have to foot the rest.
Your data on GDP cost???
Healthcare Financing | Ministry of Health
The state only pays 1.4% of GDP for healthcare. So even if overall healthcare spending is 4% of GDP, its a heavy 2.6% on citizens? aka more than half the burden falls on citizens. This is ok?
The above still doesnt include people who put off medical treatment or flat refuse to go see doctor in case they need to pay the bills.
So what if the healthcare expenditure is low? if people refused to see the doctor the expenditure is low. But does this mean healthcare is accessible or even low?
I think you really need to think about the issue rather than just get your data from the news...

Hi Sun,
Thanks for reminding "The state only pays 1.4% of GDP for healthcare. So even if overall healthcare spending is 4% of GDP, its a heavy 2.6% on citizens", as mentioned and having explained myself, Singapore is still Sampan 2.0, so the young are not yet ready for the concept of "pre-funding" yet, at least not in a state where the national reserves are always in peril, where the prime minister is a puppet of bankers and who cannot properly regulate their use of savings deposits for risky, leveraged investments. So Inix and Pain, pls make sure that the other 2.6% is not still paid for by younger citizens, albeit with the seductive excuse of "pre-funding" cos no generation wants to be known as the one that mistreated the next &/or brought the nation down. Pls ask the govt to budget the 2.6% from its annual budget, maybe cut down MOM budget (they shuffle paper around too much)/ even cut defence budget (12billion annually is a lot of $$$)- or best= raise taxes- GST,corporate, COE, income tax, property tax- any better suggestions?

I'm sorry, but you trying to find someone else to echo your viewpoint does not make it a valid policy item.
Your viewpoint just smacks too much of the 'its their own fault' mentality. Its people fault for being poor. Its people fault for falling sick. Its people fault for......
In other words, too much moral play, too little action.
I think you think you're trying to say that people should be empowered to take ownership and care of their own health, but your words are throwing out an entirely different vibe altogether.

Sorry if the vibe is wrong but yes, indeed "people should be empowered to take ownership and care of their own health", in Europe where health care costs are socialised, so is wealth, I understand UK and Norway for example, the income tax is up to 60% iirc, Singapore current Max income tax is only 21% iirc- so if we were to follow, them income and corporate tax must be raised- although MNCs might grumble of not leave. UK and Scandinavian countries thus do not have the prefunding concept and those earning more contribute proportionally more (tiered income taxes)... The young are not compelled to pay more just because being young, they are easily bullied n just like the Vietcong in their sampans, can U trust the PAP in their sampans2.0 (ferrying the bankers around) to be able to run a viable 'pre-fund' system (as opaque as national reserves)?- even Obama care is paid for from govt budget(albeit debt), so why bully the young just because they are young? For a senior to demand that the young pre-fund medishield just so the senior can enjoy the best care reeks of bullying if not deception- in so far as generation after generation suffers diabetes earlier and earlier in life, and the solutions are subcontracted to big pharma with expensive drugs, healthcare cost will rise exponentially and soon, the young will be totally disillusioned and the consequence of such ill sentiment shouldn't be underestimated- heard of the Arab spring?

Whilst I am not against universal healthcare per se, European and Obamacare models reveal high government costs, any responsible suggestion must be fair to all sides- given the unhealthy/iresponsible lifestyles exaggerated generation after generation, something must urgently be done to stem the root of the obesity/ sedentary life problem. The singapore government has previously refused to reveal/ discuss the true health and quantum of our national reserves, so what suggests that the young will accept another compulsory obligation given the loud cries against NS already, will they believe or will they rebel? You should be old enough to know that the policies of politicians wearing rose tinted glasses often fail after not long.

Btw, I feel like writing an article about how, in a progressive society, the fraction of annual value (AV) as property tax (now mostly just 4% should be made higher than GST since GST hits the poor proportionally higher than the rich- rebates could be given for any property tax increase e.g.,at a waiver rate of say $4k AV p.a. worth per person, so that if the tax payable on a $20k property resided in by 4 Singaporeans would be 8%*(20k-4*4k)= $320 p.a.- but the same property resided in by only person will attract a tax of $1680 p.a (less Sgporean, less waiver...)..... Fair?.... Think my new idea is more important than this old medishield thread... Time I move on...agree w me?

 

[Inix]

And a Samsui old woman just committed suicide couple of days back. Reason? She was concerned that she would be a liability to her family members due to the fact her ailing health.

For people like them, all out-of-pocket, no insurance, contributed to the country, lived an active, hardworking and non sedentary lifestyle, by cherry6's standard, we should just kill them. Why? because why they help to built the country, they didn't save enough for rainy days. Nevermind the fact that they didn't have the education nor the opportunity.

It IS her fault. So committing suicide isn't a wrong thing. Its just sickening that we have people who think like that.

 

[cherry6]

Kicking the can down the road style healthcare policy making?

Kicking the can down the road style healthcare policy making?

Perhaps property tax should increase to subsidise healthcare costs a bit (more).
...
Btw, I feel like writing an article about how, in a progressive society, the fraction of annual value (AV) as property tax (now mostly just 4% should be made higher than GST since GST hits the poor proportionally higher than the rich- rebates could be given for any property tax increase e.g.,at a waiver rate of say $4k AV p.a. worth per person, so that if the tax payable on a $20k property resided in by 4 Singaporeans would be 8%*(20k-4*4k)= $320 p.a.- but the same property resided in by only person will attract a tax of $1680 p.a (less Sgporean, less waiver...)..... Fair?.... Think my new idea is more important than this old medishield thread... Time I move on...agree w me?

And a Samsui old woman just committed suicide couple of days back. Reason? She was concerned that she would be a liability to her family members due to the fact her ailing health.
For people like them, all out-of-pocket, no insurance, contributed to the country, lived an active, hardworking and non sedentary lifestyle, by cherry6's standard, we should just kill them. Why? because why they help to built the country, they didn't save enough for rainy days. Nevermind the fact that they didn't have the education nor the opportunity.
It IS her fault. So committing suicide isn't a wrong thing. Its just sickening that we have people who think like that.

Hi Inix, when u mention my name, is it an invitation to reply? PS: may I kindly remind u that good Christians (as u so announced being one), must not try to spread rumours and untruths. AT NO POINT DID I EVER EVEN SUGGEST THAT SICK PEOPLE SHOULD BE EUTHANISED, in fact I was plenty happy that medifund covered the full final bills for the very poor. Like a ST letter writer, (MEDISHIELD LIFE- Problems with pre-funding) I was just concerned that PM Lee's Sampan2.0 was not yet ready for the transparency and accountability necessary in a compulsory pre-fund health insurance scheme.

Whilst mulling over revenue options to cover for any significant jumps in medishield premiums (I concuded in the last and appended post that property tax with the option of citizen occupancy rebates would be the best option) - I also suggested improved emphasis on healthy lifestyle options so that diabetes and other diseases related to unhealthy lifestyles do not become the prevailent norm. Was it some kind of meanness or prejudice that caused you to accuse me of promoting euthanasia?

Defamation shouldn't be the tactic of a fellow Christian soul, and all are invited to consider increasing property tax (increase to 8% from current 4% since GST is already 7% currently) with select waivers according to occupancy status for a complete discussion of revenue stream options to make healthcare universal for an increasingly misled/ irresponsible population (preventative healthcare wise)- budget source is essential to this discussion.

The lack of options for subvention for any budget increase is rather irresponsible policy making/ discussion don't you think? Or do you suggest just kicking the can down the road and let the next generation find itself in bankruptsy $hit, what do you think?

Overall, we need a workforce that maintains itself I'm a state of health, not one that expects easily available treatment and doesn't take care of its own health/ too stingy to pay for health consults, and we have a whole next generation to think about, but first answer my property tax increase question cos its the most equitable way out I can think of at this moment (u wouldn't have to pay more, unless you stay alone in a big house)...

According to PM Lee, still sampan, version2.0 only, so people have to be responsible for themselves and each other, doc on board is only applicable for cruise ship class- so for now, the govt sponsor 80% ward charages, only the very poor, sponsorship 100%, so this discussion is part of working hard, hope you actively contribute well considered suggestions and avoid overt self interest in your suggestions in future.

 

[Inix]

Err, I'm not asking you to reply. And no, I'm not saying you said it. I'm just saying its YOUR standard. If you can't even read proper english, don't bother wasting anyone's time.

 

[sunzoner]

And a Samsui old woman just committed suicide couple of days back. Reason? She was concerned that she would be a liability to her family members due to the fact her ailing health.

For people like them, all out-of-pocket, no insurance, contributed to the country, lived an active, hardworking and non sedentary lifestyle, by cherry6's standard, we should just kill them. Why? because why they help to built the country, they didn't save enough for rainy days. Nevermind the fact that they didn't have the education nor the opportunity.

It IS her fault. So committing suicide isn't a wrong thing. Its just sickening that we have people who think like that.

I would like to use what inix posted here in reply to painrack...

What happened to this lady here? She killed herself because she dun want to be a burden to her family. If she lives, she will need to tap on them for medical treatment fees. Any change to medishield will not change this fact.

Her death also mean singapore's healthcare expenditure will remain low. So you are happy with our low healthcare expenditure, right?

 

[sunzoner]

...
Actually, I DO know how it would have affected him. With Medishield paying the bulk of the hospital bill, this would mean that the Medisave payments would have become much more manageable, hopefully, to the extent that his Medisave account can handle it until he passed away.

You assumed that medishield can pay the bulk of the bill? You assumed he has the funds in medisave to pay?

What about those who doesnt? You dun care? You support change that benefits only you even though it doesnt benefits other?

...
And so? Again. Healthcare costs refer to the totality of healthcare costs on the economy. However, the definition of affordability takes on different meaning when viewed by different entities.

newspeak anyone?

...
And the real question is, are the healthcare costs MANAGABLE. In the 2013 speech, the Minister found around 2% of patients in the system who are unable to afford the bills. That's a relatively healthy funding scenario, one that Medifund can step in to help manage.

Nope.

It means out of those who visited hospital, 2% cannot afford to pay and asked medifund for help.

For those who did not visit the hospital at all, it is not captured. And that is why the overall healthcare expenditure is so low. Not because our healthcare is "manageable".

...

I suspect your definition of access is NOT the proper definition of access.

Ok. let point me toward the newspeak dictionary.

 

[Majestic12]

This is an interesting topic.

1. Always remember that the goal of the politician is to win the next election.

2. Given that we have an aging population, it is inevitable that some sick and elderly must die off for the system to continue its survival.

3. Pray that you are lucky in avoiding any major illnesses.

 

[Majestic12]

And I still disagree today . I still think we all deserve the best care, rather than adequate care.

Who pays? I hope you are not suggesting the future generation because that would be completely and morally bankrupt.

 

[Majestic12]

And a Samsui old woman just committed suicide couple of days back. Reason? She was concerned that she would be a liability to her family members due to the fact her ailing health.

For people like them, all out-of-pocket, no insurance, contributed to the country, lived an active, hardworking and non sedentary lifestyle, by cherry6's standard, we should just kill them. Why? because why they help to built the country, they didn't save enough for rainy days. Nevermind the fact that they didn't have the education nor the opportunity.

It IS her fault. So committing suicide isn't a wrong thing. Its just sickening that we have people who think like that.

From another context, she is actually a heroine given that she sacrificed her life for the sake of her family's well-being.

My own great-grandmother did the exact same thing years ago.

And please, when you are 95, you have lived long enough to embrace death by any means. By not dying, you are depriving the next generation(s) of resources. Death is natural - to keep living is not.

 

[Inix]

From another context, she is actually a heroine given that she sacrificed her life for the sake of her family's well-being.

My own great-grandmother did the exact same thing years ago.

And please, when you are 95, you have lived long enough to embrace death by any means. By not dying, you are depriving the next generation(s) of resources. Death is natural - to keep living is not.

Going by your logic, please don't treat yourself the next time you fall sick. Whatever age you are, you have lived long enough to embrace death by any means. By not dying, you are depriving the next generation(s) of resources. Death is natural - to keep living is not.

But that's you. I think on the other hand, we have a moral responsibility for the collective good. Even the UN agrees that Healthcare is a right, and not a good.

 

[Inix]

Who pays? I hope you are not suggesting the future generation because that would be completely and morally bankrupt.

A comprehensive, sustainable medical insurance framework is possible, AND not exactly far fetch. Hong Kong comes to mind.

 

[Inix]

I would like to use what inix posted here in reply to painrack...

What happened to this lady here? She killed herself because she dun want to be a burden to her family. If she lives, she will need to tap on them for medical treatment fees. Any change to medishield will not change this fact.

Her death also mean singapore's healthcare expenditure will remain low. So you are happy with our low healthcare expenditure, right?

To be fair to the Hospitals, and the Govt by extension, the old lady will not be denied treatment even if she has no money. If she qualifies for the grants (and I believe she does), she will get it. There isn't really any doubt about that as it is very clear about what 1 is entitled to, and what 1 is not. Provided of course, that you understand the system.

The bigger problem for me is the inflexibility of the system, and the lack of knowledge for the elderly. There have been many mis-understanding of the system, and its not uncommon for people to not understand it. The fact that our civil servants arn't exactly known to be flexible only makes it worse for many people who don't know the rules.