Do we really need this CareShield Life? Can opt out?

[moolala]

You used the word "undemocratic." A hypothetical premium levied on the indigent could certainly be cruel, but it's not necessarily undemocratic.

Of course the fact is that there are premium subsidies available, including up to full premium waivers ("Additional Premium Support") in hardship cases.


Oh really? So it's your view that a system is "undemocratic" (the word you chose) if the circa 3 million adult Singaporean citizens didn't unanimously agree to a particular policy? Really?

not necessarily undemocratic - I argued its unconstitutional, not undemocratic

so if there's no subsidies, and a jobless person has to pay the premiums even if it's one cent, it stands and legal? well I don't think so based on argument when u tax nothing, u get 0. I'm not a lawyer but it's common sense to layman like me

as u have pointed out, the threshold of passing varies, in US senate its 60 votes for eg
if ur not given a choice, it's undemocratic

the confusion here is democratic or undemocratic in what issue? ur talking about mp while I'm talking about this issue alone

that being said, if there's a poll or vote on this issue alone, I would bet that it would be strike down

 

[nydeidith]

well at first i was taken aback by the premium....but then there isnt such disability insurance you can buy on your own....so im okay with it....

but it does seems too much to force ppl to buy it....although if they allow opt out and those opt out ppl kena...they prolly expect govt to take care of them...so govt pass the bill to the collective ppl...right or wrong i dunno....just make sure this is well managed...dont over collect pay out little bit only...

 

[BBCWatcher]

not necessarily undemocratic - I argued its unconstitutional, not undemocratic

OK, interesting. Which part of Singapore's constitution does CareShield Life violate, in your view?

so if there's no subsidies....

But there are subsidies, even 100% subsidies.

as u have pointed out, the threshold of passing varies, in US senate its 60 votes for eg
if ur not given a choice, it's undemocratic

The U.S. Senate is not a great example, so let's just set that one aside. Singaporean citizens voted overwhelmingly (>60%) in the recent election and in the one prior for MPs from the People's Action Party (PAP), and these MPs formed the current government and the one prior. It was the prior government that introduced CareShield Life. The voting public then still overwhelmingly supported a PAP-helmed government.

Given these electoral facts, with >60% popular support for successive PAP-helmed governments before and after CareShield Life's enactment, it seems quite odd to assert that CareShield Life is "undemocratic" (your word).

The fact CareShield Life hasn't been tested in a single issue popular referendum doesn't mean it's "undemocratic." It means it hasn't been tested in a single issue popular referendum.

but it does seems too much to force ppl to buy it....although if they allow opt out and those opt out ppl kena...they prolly expect govt to take care of them...so govt pass the bill to the collective ppl...right or wrong i dunno....just make sure this is well managed...dont over collect pay out little bit only...

Yes, you can raise general taxes to support mostly Singaporean citizens with disabilities (SPRs on average pay more and get less out of CSL -- I'm not complaining), or you can collect means-tested premiums (from tax advantaged, high interest rate medical savings accounts). Those are your two basic choices, really. "Let disabled Singaporean citizens be even poorer" isn't actually a viable choice.

 

[moolala]

OK, interesting. Which part of Singapore's constitution does CareShield Life violate, in your view?


But there are subsidies, even 100% subsidies.


The U.S. Senate is not a great example, so let's just set that one aside. Singaporean citizens voted overwhelmingly (>60%) in the recent election and in the one prior for MPs from the People's Action Party (PAP), and these MPs formed the current government and the one prior. It was the prior government that introduced CareShield Life. The voting public then still overwhelmingly supported a PAP-helmed government.

Given these electoral facts, with >60% popular support for successive PAP-helmed governments before and after CareShield Life's enactment, it seems quite odd to assert that CareShield Life is "undemocratic" (your word).

The fact CareShield Life hasn't been tested in a single issue popular referendum doesn't mean it's "undemocratic." It means it hasn't been tested in a single issue popular referendum.

1) the power to impose mandatory premiums comes from taxes...if there's a tax on nothing for no income personnel, the government get nothing and therefore no premiums can be enacted

2) Whether there's subsidies or not should not affect whether the government has a right to impose mandatory premiums on no income person and is a separate issue. So you are saying if there's no subsidies, its unconstitutional?

3) supermajority of 67 votes in 100 vote is quite common. That being said, the point is the threshold varies

4) it is undemocratic because there's no choice

 

[BBCWatcher]

....So you are saying if there's no subsidies, its unconstitutional?

You claim CareShield Life is unconstitutional, and I asked you what part of Singapore's constitution you think CareShield Life violates. I haven't made any such claim.

4) it is undemocratic because there's no choice

Do you have any evidence that your definition of "undemocratic" is a commonly held one? Are all laws that democratically elected legislatures pass -- a law against murder, for example -- "undemocratic" if they merely require any particular individual behavior? National Service, the income tax, MediShield Life, CPF LIFE, anti-littering laws.... they're all "undemocratic" in your view?

 

[moolala]

You claim CareShield Life is unconstitutional, and I asked you what part of Singapore's constitution you think CareShield Life violates. I haven't made any such claim.


Do you have any evidence that your definition of "undemocratic" is a commonly held one? Are all laws that democratically elected legislatures pass -- a law against murder, for example -- "undemocratic" if they merely require any particular individual behavior? National Service, the income tax, MediShield Life, CPF LIFE, anti-littering laws.... they're all "undemocratic" in your view?

the mandatory premiums of that's not obvious to u by now

have been repeating this many times

yes, u said it ur self, it has not been tested

 

[BBCWatcher]

the mandatory premiums of that's not obvious to u by now

Which part of Singapore’s constitution do CareShield Life’s premiums violate, in your view? You claim there’s a constitutional violation. It’s not my claim. So which part? It’s a simple question.

MediShield Life also has premiums. Does MediShield Life violate the same part of the constitution in your view?

 

[moolala]

Which part of Singapore’s constitution do CareShield Life’s premiums violate, in your view? You claim there’s a constitutional violation. It’s not my claim. So which part? It’s a simple question.

MediShield Life also has premiums. Does MediShield Life violate the same part of the constitution in your view?

can u please bother to read?

yes and yes, a mandatory obligation to pay premium when u have no income to tax is unconstitutional

Pls bother to read from post #1 instead of shooting off your hips and making ppl repeat themselves. they are only repeating themselves because they are trying to be nice. it only makes u look ignorant

 

[BBCWatcher]

yes and yes, a mandatory obligation to pay premium when u have no income to tax is unconstitutional

What specific section or part of Singapore’s constitution are you referring to?

Of course you’re referring to some other hypothetical program that doesn’t exist. There are 100% premium waivers available for the indigent (and slightly above indigent) in the programs that do exist.

 

[fr33d0m]

can u please bother to read?

yes and yes, a mandatory obligation to pay premium when u have no income to tax is unconstitutional

Pls bother to read from post #1 instead of shooting off your hips and making ppl repeat themselves. they are only repeating themselves because they are trying to be nice. it only makes u look ignorant

Please stop your bull crap about no tax without income. You pay GST no matter whether you have income or not as long as you purchase goods and services.

You pay plenty of tax with or without income. Of course, you don’t pay income tax without income.

 

[moolala]

Please stop your bull crap about no tax without income. You pay GST no matter whether you have income or not as long as you purchase goods and services.

You pay plenty of tax with or without income. Of course, you don’t pay income tax without income.

it's funny how u proved my point and yet dismiss it as bs

u take the example of GST. well GST applies if u decide to purchase something (taking an action)

how can u justify a mandatory premium if u are not taking any action to do a transaction in the economy

so the justification for inaction taxation comes from income tax... hence if u earn nothing, what can the government do to make u pay?

essentially ur arguing its a fine on every person under this program
regardless of whether its legally justifiable or not, the government has a right to impose a fine on everyone regardless of their situation even though they have committed no crime

well I beg to differ and the Obamacare fiasco has demonstrated why

Pls note this insurance program was conceived by Dr Amy khor and her team. and they used the Obamacare as inspiration for this socialist nonsense

 

[fr33d0m]

it's funny how u proved my point and yet dismiss it as bs

u take the example of GST. well GST applies if u decide to purchase something (taking an action)

how can u justify a mandatory premium if u are not taking any action to do a transaction in the economy

so the justification for inaction taxation comes from income tax... hence if u earn nothing, what can the government do to make u pay?

essentially ur arguing its a fine on every person under this program
regardless of whether its legally justifiable or not, the government has a right to impose a fine on everyone regardless of their situation even though they have committed no crime

well I beg to differ and the Obamacare fiasco has demonstrated why

Pls note this insurance program was conceived by Dr Amy khor and her team. and they used the Obamacare as inspiration for this socialist nonsense

By being a fellow citizen, you enjoy the wealth created by them and you are to contribute to help them overcome their misfortunes.


You can well be stateless and leave SG.

On the topic of tax, SG government can well define portion of GST specifically for providing CareShield Life to every Singaporean. It just complicates tax code. Personal income tax is never a large part of tax for SG.

 

[exterminazn]

it's funny how u proved my point and yet dismiss it as bs

u take the example of GST. well GST applies if u decide to purchase something (taking an action)

how can u justify a mandatory premium if u are not taking any action to do a transaction in the economy

so the justification for inaction taxation comes from income tax... hence if u earn nothing, what can the government do to make u pay?

essentially ur arguing its a fine on every person under this program
regardless of whether its legally justifiable or not, the government has a right to impose a fine on everyone regardless of their situation even though they have committed no crime

well I beg to differ and the Obamacare fiasco has demonstrated why

Pls note this insurance program was conceived by Dr Amy khor and her team. and they used the Obamacare as inspiration for this socialist nonsense

You are free to leave Sg if not happy lo

 

[moolala]

By being a fellow citizen, you enjoy the wealth created by them and you are to contribute to help them overcome their misfortunes.


You can well be stateless and leave SG.

On the topic of tax, SG government can well define portion of GST specifically for providing CareShield Life to every Singaporean. It just complicates tax code. Personal income tax is never a large part of tax for SG.

Then they should do what you just said - fund it via GST
those who are jobless or poor won't spend much
In fact I would argue they will pay less under such a system compared to now

do u realise how ludicrious your arguments are?
today the premiums may be a couple of bucks, next year it may be a couple of hundreds, 10 years down the road, it may be thousands of dollars
According to you guys, there is no limit to the amount of mandatory premiums each person must pay - whatever the program needs, whatever the amount will be charged. What's stopping it from going up? we know how these insurance programs are run...take a look at your private insurance now

When it reaches hundreds or thousands, the % of their income that goes to this mandatory premiums can only go up. For the jobless and no income, they are paying infinity taxes because anything/0=infinity

I have never heard of income taxes being more than 100%. For you to owe the government more than what you can earn - think about that

For ppl to argue that there is no limit to the amount of mandatory premiums that can be charged and that it is constitutional to do is just really shallow thinking without diving deeper into the issues

 

[chrisloh65]

GST is an evil tax because it tax you when you have no income!
It is a regressive tax that penalizes those with no income, jobless, young, retirees, disabled, and the sick etc!

Please stop your bull crap about no tax without income. You pay GST no matter whether you have income or not as long as you purchase goods and services.

You pay plenty of tax with or without income. Of course, you don’t pay income tax without income.

 

[item2sell]

Careshield is force down your throat.

The good thing is less FT will take up citizenship.

Hence by next election. We can vote out filthy whites

 

[BBCWatcher]

You are free to leave Sg if not happy lo

People are generally free to leave Singapore if not happy (or if happy for that matter), but CareShield Life premiums are payable if you're a Singaporean citizen or Singapore Permanent Resident born in 1980 or later and do not qualify for a full premium waiver. That's whether you are physically in Singapore or not -- that detail doesn't matter for these purposes.

If you want to avoid paying remaining future CareShield Life premiums (and of course lose CareShield Life coverage), then you have two choices available:

1. Make yourself destitute or at least very nearly so. Then you should qualify for a premium waiver, although the government reserves the right to collect your premiums from other members of your family. (If for example you transfer all your wealth to your mother then plead destitution, it's very likely your mother will be required to pay your CareShield Life premiums.)

2. End your Singaporean citizenship or Singapore Permanent Residence, as applicable.

 

[fr33d0m]

GST is an evil tax because it tax you when you have no income!
It is a regressive tax that penalizes those with no income, jobless, young, retirees, disabled, and the sick etc!

GST has been here for so many years yet you still are in SG.

Get out of here.

 

[moolala]

People are generally free to leave Singapore if not happy (or if happy for that matter), but CareShield Life premiums are payable if you're a Singaporean citizen or Singapore Permanent Resident born in 1980 or later and do not qualify for a full premium waiver. That's whether you are physically in Singapore or not -- that detail doesn't matter for these purposes.

If you want to avoid paying remaining future CareShield Life premiums (and of course lose CareShield Life coverage), then you have two choices available:

1. Make yourself destitute or at least very nearly so. Then you should qualify for a premium waiver, although the government reserves the right to collect your premiums from other members of your family. (If for example you transfer all your wealth to your mother then plead destitution, it's very likely your mother will be required to pay your CareShield Life premiums.)

2. End your Singaporean citizenship or Singapore Permanent Residence, as applicable.

GST has been here for so many years yet you still are in SG.

Get out of here.

song bo, this careshield is for sinkies only, truly singapore

If its funded by GST, any tom dick harry FTrash and companies will also have to pay and subsidise this

Since its a privilege for sinkies only, of course the premiums will be higher and of course, its different

 

[tractor13]

Honestly, yes it seems that it is a waste of money, but in life we don't know what is going to happen. And, once it happens, ppl tends to kpkb and regret not buying any safety net to cover. Its whether u wan to risk it. Singapore is trying to help us lighten the financial burden even if it might happen in a super rare chance.

For me, who don't like to take risk, definitely will swing towards of covering myself. I feel that in the future, when you are severely disabled, it is very difficult and hard to find a job to lighten my workload.

My ultimate goal is to live comfortably and no regrets.

Even though, it might be pricey, but we live in comfort in the same time. We're covered and insured.

#cheers