Prefunding risk Medishield-life degenerating into a Bankrupt Ponzi Scheme.

cherry6

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
11,277
Reaction score
69
Prefunding Risks Medishield-life Degenerating into a Bankrupt-Ponzi-Scheme of unending premium incre

Mr Tan KL's concerns are prescient: Prefunding Policy Risks Medishield-life Degenerating into a Bankrupt-Ponzi-Scheme of unending premium increases if it is modelled after a one-incident-only-claim 'whole life' insurance policy/scheme.

Mr Tan Kin Lian wrote Pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life:
The Straits Times; Published on Nov 25, 2013
Pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life
CURRENTLY, MediShield requires an annual premium that varies according to age. Younger people pay a lower premium, while older people pay a higher sum.
The Government is now planning to introduce MediShield Life, which covers people for life.
There has been some discussion about pre-funding for MediShield Life ("Problems with pre-funding" by Mr David Boey, last Tuesday; "Merits of pre-funding" by Ms Maria Loh Mun Foong; last Thursday; and "Caring for the old should be the norm" by Mr Geoffrey Kung; Forum Online, last Thursday).
The aim is for the insured person to pay a level premium to cover him for life. This is akin to a life insurance policy.
In both cases, the claim rate is lower for younger people and higher for older people. Pre-funding allows a person to pay a level premium that is deemed by an actuary to be sufficient for his lifetime.
There is, however, one key difference that makes pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life.
In a whole-life policy, the sum assured is fixed for the duration of the contract.
For medical insurance, the cost of treatment is expected to rise over the years due to inflation. Also, the cost depends on the choice of hospital and specialists, and can vary significantly from one claim to another.
Some countries have adopted measures to make medical treatment more affordable for older people through cross-subsidies and supported by general taxation. They do not try to achieve this goal by using pre-funding under individual contracts.

Tan Kin Lian
Copyright © 2014 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
TKL/ST: Pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life
Already, the element of prefunding exists in the form of medisave, whereby individuals involuntarily contribute to a medical savings account with extremely limited usage options unless they have proven terminal illness conditions of extremely short life-expectancy: e.g. strict claim limits, limits based upon claim type/ treatment incident: e.g. in-patient vs out-patient, claim per chemotherapy treatment; ban on claims for cosmetic treatments, acute illnesses(cough n colds etc) etc.

Compared to whole life insurance (insurance on life or the occurrence of a terminal illness), insurance covering medical treatment is a whole lot more complex if not unpredictable with the possibility of involving unlimited claim incidences depending on the onset, severity and permanence of the medical condition (e.g. kidney dialysis which last lifetime). Life insurance on the other hand is one of the simplest forms of insurance, contractually involving ONLY ONE POSSIBLE CLAIM: I.e. a FIXED, PRE-AGREED lump sum benefit payable upon a terminal event/incident (death or terminal, incurable illness); henforth after the claim, the life-insurance policy/contract is ceased (payee is either terminally ill but 'paid', or else dead in sudden accident (estate gets paid): the sum assured is FIXED (or equals the total amount of accrued principle including bonus eqrned over years if the policy value exceeds the guaranteed death/ terminal illness payout sum.)

In medical insurance however, the total payout sum is IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT due to advances in medical technology, medical costs inflation, lifespan of the individual, quality of care expected, frequency of hospitalisation, availability of domestic help (some people cannot be discharged because care givers not free/ 'busy' etc):
Just like NHS in the UK/ USA national pension schemes, bankruptcy awaits due to an excessive claims to premiums record: with even government support doing little to improve finances when claims eventually far outpace all premiums paid.

Medishield-life sows the seeds of failed promises. There is no free lunch in this world; no solution to an unhealthy lifestyle (diabetes, smoking, obesity etc). Where preventive healthcare fails, no insurance scheme can restore the loss without the high risk of bankruptcy or extremely high running costs.

Prefunding already exists in the claims restricted nature of the CPF medisave account. If gahmen focuses on healthy lifestyle/ preventive healrthcare amongst all, boosts up medifund to fund the medical cost of the needy only, then there is reduced need to prefund the moral hazard of what is basically a fools errand to manage (prefunded Medishield-life premiums), and thus reduce the risk of medishield/ worse: compulsory Medishield-life eventually succumbing to become another bankrupt/exposed ponzi scheme.

Senior generation Singaporeans should also not ill forget the words of Lee Kuan Yew as they marvel at his son's mathematical acrobatics as he "derails the idea of having individual accounts for CPF and Medisave.":
Lee Kuan Yew:
My major objective in the early days was to make sure that nobody derails the idea of having individual accounts for CPF and Medisave. Whatever you earn, it’s yours. Because once you have that individual account, any suggestion that you put it into a common pool and everybody takes out from it (as with other welfare systems) is bound to lose you votes.
So if Low Thia Khiang says now, let’s set up a common pool, I think he’ll lose votes in the next election. Are you prepared to put your money into a common pool, having slogged and built up your CPF nest egg? It’s yours and if you don’t use it, you can leave it to your children or your relatives or whoever you like. Why should you put it into a common pool and everybody draws out at your expense, which is what’s happening in some Western countries? The system has collapsed.
From Lee Kuan Yew : Hard truths to keep Singapore going. (Eds Han FK, Z Ibrahim, Chua MH, L Lim, I Low, R Lin, R Chan) Straits Times Press 2011
Source: Are Singaporeans being set up for disappointment? | Insights Health Associates
The seeds of destruction are being sown, young Singaporeans should prepare themselves for some rather lean years ahead as with the indiscriminate forced collection of prefunded Medishield-life premiums on top of a prefunded CPF Medisave scheme, moral hazard is greatly increased....
 
Last edited:

cancer81

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
61,057
Reaction score
0
even do IPPT (which has a side effect of making sure people keep themselves healthy) is not a easy thing to accept...

gahment cutting funding on medical care and preaching (literally) to people to live more healthy live (eat less oily, salty, sweet and exercise more) is going to lose PAP votes :s22:
 

cherry6

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
11,277
Reaction score
69
Healthy lifestyle choice: the main insurance against bankruptcy of Medishield-life and unaffordable

Healthy lifestyle choice: the main insurance against bankruptcy of Medishield-life and unaffordable healthcare costs.
Fr Thread (HWZ): Prefunding risk Medishield-life degenerating into a Bankrupt Ponzi Scheme.
even do IPPT (which has a side effect of making sure people keep themselves healthy) is not a easy thing to accept...

gahment cutting funding on medical care and preaching (literally) to people to live more healthy live (eat less oily, salty, sweet and exercise more) is going to lose PAP votes :s22:
I didn't say cut medical care funding overnight, but that gahmen should sponsor more research into preventive health: e.g. effect of healthy-lifestyle on blood pressure, cholesterol levels, obesity, diabetes etc. If smoking is bad, than just tell 'world tobacco Asia' conference organisers that they are not welcomed here, rather than welcome them to Marina Bay Sands in Nov to have their big tobacco extravaganza.(see letter below).

Ultimately, PAP gahmen is trying to con medisave$$$ out of Sinkie's by using 'pre-funding' concept which is obviously misplaced because healthcare costs CAN ONLY GO UP and unlike whole life insurance, claims are not limited to a fixed one-time payout amount of $XXX(+ some bonus for those who lived long and paid premiums for whole life insurance policy all along)[Ref: TKL/ST: Pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life]. Ultimately, Sinkie's will find themselves conned by this prefunding scam theory (even LKY was against excessive socialism in healthcare costs (he introduced medisave for that reason: to keep costs individualised): let alone this prefunding excuse to collect high premiums from younger generation). The younger generation today will soon enough SMELL A RAT and therefore, I believe that with Medishield-life (prefunding), the PAP are digging their own political graves and it wouldn't be too soon before the PAP loses its right to govern as the young of today declare PAP incompetent (e.g. if Medishield-life goes bankrupt DESPITE collecting double premiums from young members to promise much lower/ discounted premiums when they are old).

Robbing Peter to pay Paul only serves to destroy any credibility PAP has that the LKY era earned them...

Making Singapore the HQ of tobacco promotion/ distribution to the world...
Ef2Dr46.jpg

The Straits Times, Published on May 26, 2014
Tobacco fair contradicts anti-smoking efforts
WORLD No Tobacco Day is coming up on May 31, but there is little reason for cheer.
One of the largest trade fairs in the tobacco industry, the World Tobacco Asia 2014, is set to take place in Singapore in November, after being rejected by Indonesia.
As a party to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Singapore is required to meet its obligations under Article 13 of the FCTC.
The WHO states that a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship should cover:
- All advertising and promotion, as well as sponsorship, without exception;
- Acts that aim at promotion and acts that have, or are likely to have, a promotional effect;
- Promotion of tobacco products and the use of tobacco;
- Commercial communications and commercial recommendations and actions;
- Advertising and promotion of tobacco brand names and all corporate promotion.
Holding the fair would result in Singapore contravening the above obligations under Article 13.
After successfully hosting the World Conference on Tobacco or Health in 2012 and pledging to reduce smoking prevalence to below 10 per cent by 2020, staging the tobacco industry's trade show here would be absurd.
The fair is not a closed-door event accessible exclusively to industry players. Members of the public would inadvertently be exposed to otherwise banned tobacco advertising.
How can the Health Sciences Authority ensure that tobacco products which are prohibited in Singapore would not be imported, promoted and given out as samples at the fair?
How can the authorities prevent such illegal products from being surreptitiously sold here after the trade show ends?
The Government must remain resolute in its stand against tobacco and protect Singaporeans from all forms of tobacco promotion without exception.
Liu I-Chun (Ms)
Copyright © 2014 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
Tobacco fair contradicts anti-smoking efforts

Then again, with self-serving/ corrupt politicians of the following sort, one does not expect too much.
"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity."
YqUYU.jpg
[IMG URL]
- 'fixing the opposition':
 
Last edited:

cancer81

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
61,057
Reaction score
0
if the people want that kind of thing (and I am a pretty socialist person by default) then the ruling party need to see if the long term viability of the idea is there or not.

already we got loads of ppl saying that CPF should not have minimum sum and what not, if you agree with the reduction in socialism and making it individualist (a somewhat more small government leaning ideal) then CPF need to remain as it is so that instead of asking for government handouts later in life, you can take pride that you are living off your own savings. Whether or not you consider the money really your own is another thing altogether.

given what I have observed, sooner or later the government will be forced to give you an option to take all your CPF monies back. I do not think there will be that many who will do this. But there will be some people who are really going to like that sort of thing. And this includes that lady who is a bukit brown resident, yes her address has nothing do with CPF flexibility but the whole thing abt her needing it to live kinda does...

the next generation will ask the government to rob Paul to pay Peter, they want to be paid and not from their own pockets. May the shock and destruction make the next next generation curse their previous generation. Like how many now curse the previous generation for giving the PAP so much power for so long.

If we never run this "ship" ashore, we will never know that it is possible. Even if the captain seems to be paying way too much heed to the "mindless" mob on the deck :s13:
 

cherry6

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
11,277
Reaction score
69
if the people want that kind of thing (and I am a pretty socialist person by default) then the ruling party need to see if the long term viability of the idea is there or not.

already we got loads of ppl saying that CPF should not have minimum sum and what not, if you agree with the reduction in socialism and making it individualist (a somewhat more small government leaning ideal) then CPF need to remain as it is so that instead of asking for government handouts later in life, you can take pride that you are living off your own savings. Whether or not you consider the money really your own is another thing altogether.

given what I have observed, sooner or later the government will be forced to give you an option to take all your CPF monies back. I do not think there will be that many who will do this. But there will be some people who are really going to like that sort of thing. And this includes that lady who is a bukit brown resident, yes her address has nothing do with CPF flexibility but the whole thing abt her needing it to live kinda does...

the next generation will ask the government to rob Paul to pay Peter, they want to be paid and not from their own pockets. May the shock and destruction make the next next generation curse their previous generation. Like how many now curse the previous generation for giving the PAP so much power for so long.

If we never run this "ship" ashore, we will never know that it is possible. Even if the captain seems to be paying way too much heed to the "mindless" mob on the deck :s13:
Medishield-life is indeed robbing Peter to pay Paul: why else use the "prefunding" concept but to scam people. People would have sufficient funds for healthcare if gahmen made medisave use more restricted: e.g. claim limits set at C/B2 class level equavalent, any excess, need to cough out cash.
Thus, medisave is ALREADY a form of prefunding in so far that it is a personal fund for later use although it is individualised to named CPF member.

Thus, to now PREFUND an insurance scheme when there is ALREADY PREFUNDED MEDISAVE: now that isn't even socialist. Doesn't even qualify to be cursed as communist. It resembles most likely a PONZI SCHEME!!!!!!!!

Anyhow, I don't think gahmen will let people withdraw CPF beyond leaving minimum sum behind because it is admittedly SHORT OF CASH: to do so risks the need to raise taxes or depreciate SGD (print $$$ excessively): both are politically fatal decisions, so pap will have to pick up the gauntlet and advise senior CPF members accordingly.

About the retired teacher who asked MP Hiri Kumar for her CPF $$$ back, she needs to be allowed to reverse mortgage her property for $$$. Nobody likes to do that because everyone wants FOC $$$ from the gahmen. But the gahmen should ask banks to provide reverse mortgage services so that citizens can moneytise their properties when they need $$$. Of course one has to be prudent since one will lose one's property should the debt exceed the maximum loan margin, thus one must plan one's finances such that one has enough nest egg before retiring so that there ALWAYS remains a roof over one's head by limiting one's borrowing to only what is absolutely necessary against the collateral being ones roof overhead.
 
Last edited:

sunzoner

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2002
Messages
14,775
Reaction score
311
Min sum and medisave is two different thing.
 

cherry6

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
11,277
Reaction score
69
Medishield-life was created to help gahmen save $$$ on Medifund disbursements is it???!!

Medishield-life was created to help gahmen save $$$ on Medifund disbursements is it???!!

For the record:
Medifund disbursed S$90million in FY ending 2012 (see below):
I wonder if Medishield-life is expected to reduce the amount disbursed from Medifund since a large number of persons dependent on Medifund are probably folks who REFUSED to join medishield, dropped out halfway because they couldn't afford to pay the higher premiums associated with older age ($1190@90yrs) or exceeded the qualification age (>/= 90yrs)(MediShield Premiums(2013)).

Given that Medishield-life will absorb many of these current non-members into the fold, the question remains if medifund disbursements are expected to fall, and if so, by how much? Also, whether whatever savings from decrease medifund disbursements will be sufficient to cover for those who cannot afford the raised premiums of Medishield-life, or Medishield-life be sustained upon the deception based Ponzi concept of 'pre-funding' for healthcare: such that the younger generation is expected to foot the healthcare bills of the elderly/ the old. (as Mr Tan Kin Lian said in 'Pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life', medishield life is much too complex to adopt the 'pre-funding' concept that medisave already well serves)

Current Medishield Premiums (2013):
A7v2MlH.jpg
(MediShield Premiums (2013))

Medifund payout up 16% to $90m
Tuesday, Feb 26, 2013; The New Paper
st_ward_1.jpg

SINGAPORE - Medifund supported more needy patients in the 2011 financial year and paid out more money as well.
The endowment fund, set up in 1993 to help Singaporeans who cannot pay their medical bills, disbursed more than $90 million in aid between April 2011 and the end of March last year.
This was 16 per cent more than in the previous 12 months (FY2010).
There were 518,000 successful applications in FY2011, an increase of 8 per cent from FY2010.
Of these, more than 93 per cent had their entire outstanding subsidised bill paid by the fund, the Ministry of Health said on Saturday.
On average, inpatients received $1,295 and outpatients $103 each time they sought aid.
The elderly received $28 million of Medifund assistance, a 20 per cent increase from the previous year.
For this financial year (FY2012), poor patients being cared for at home, rather than in an institution, are also eligible for Medifund help.
Children needing financial help for medical bills will have $10 million to call on from next month from a fund specially set up for them, called Medifund Junior.
In the last five years, the Government has pumped in about $1.6 billion into Medifund and Medifund Silver (which is for the elderly) and the capital sum now stands at $3 billion.
The Government "will continue to strengthen the social safety net to make sure no needy Singapore citizen is denied healthcare due to the inability to pay", the ministry said.
http://yourhealth.asiaone.com/content/medifund-payout-16-90m
 
Last edited:
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Terms of Service for more information.
Top