Can you PLEASE read what Inix said? That's 20 years of treatment for diabetes before renal failure kicked in.The $16k left over in medisave that should have been spent rather than coughing out cash, I too cannot understand why, especially if your father in law (FIL) had used subsidised care all the way since I too agree that the full bill for subsidised hospital care should 100% be medisave deductible (" pouring cats and dogs for them now")- you should have seen your MP and had this legislatively sorted out- again, compulsory (/ higher) premiums would do little to solve the problem of Ill considered laws interrupting medisave use for essential medical treatment. Your described spillover of medisave into special account and then underfunding essential medical care is also an obstacle that demands looking into.
Do you know why he has lots of Medisave left? Because diabetes is treated outpatient with stuff like cash for foot screening, eye screening, medicine and routine hba1c screening(I think for Inix then should be more of routine peripheral BGM with occasional hba1c)
For HIS time, before the major advent of CDMP, Medisave was NOT applicable for chronic disease. It is now, but the withdrawal limits/co payment means that a good amount of it is still paid for with cash. The system is DESIGNED to leave behind a good amount of Medisave for future use, to help reduce the risk of fund depletion.
It has literally nothing to do with whether you have or don't have Medishield.
Your 'fishy' story accusation is nothing of the sort, because guess WHAT ensures you have a healthy Medisave account? Not. Being. SICK.
Trying to claim that my story is 'fake' because its impossible to have a healthy Medisave account if you have Medishield is stupid. The premiums itself is designed to be low cost(hence why high deductible) and priced below Medisave contributions. You would have to have Shield intergrated plans to go beyond median Medisave contributions/
So what happens then? You let the elderly population go without healthcare because its bad stewardship of resources?I thus saw no point filling a leaking bucket with water (bad stewardship of resources).
You treat the root cause of increased health needs, namely, an aging population? How do you do that?
Compulsory euthanasia? Nope?
Then you WILL have an increased need. And you need to finance that need.
You can try to control and reduce costs, and you're utterly ignorant if you're unaware of how Singapore has been trying to do so for decades but its will be a miracle if you can somehow index healthcare inflation to normal inflation. We're already bucking the trend by keeping healthcare inflation to extremely low levels for a 1st world country and the argument IS being made that the cost controls are coming at a sacrifice in sustainability.
Its impossible to believe that you're going to be able to reduce demand and control costs in the next few decades. We are having an aging population. The only thing that will reverse that need is if you eliminate the aging.