Comments on: Singapore’s healthcare system – uniquely Singapore? F1 or F9? (Part 1)

By: homo economicus

homo economicus — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:07:49 +0000

I think you are using a rather simplistic method to calculate insurance premiums – something that insurance companies normally hire actuarial science graduates to calculate.

Aside from the fact that you did not account for the time value of money, that is to say the premiums collected today will be worth much less than the sum of payout in the future, you also neglected the fact that Singapore’s ageing, and that claims in the future will rise relatively to the no of new premiums.

To make it easier to understand, as our population ages, the no of new people signing up and paying premiums is going to be less than the no of people claiming.

By: your nose

your nose — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:34:29 +0000

Government helped to us in doing medisave, medishield and blablabla. It is more like a way of asking us to save money and use it when we are down with illness. Do they really help us in saving the cost for needy people?

By: Singapore’s Healthcare System: Uniquely Singapore? « Diatribes

Singapore’s Healthcare System: Uniquely Singapore? « Diatribes — Sun, 24 May 2009 13:34:56 +0000

[...] leave a comment » Singapore’s healthcare system – uniquely Singapore? F1 or F9? [...]

By: su

su — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:55:59 +0000

people hate to wait for the doctors and nowdays people are getting sick more often.
price are getting higher everyday(:

By: ks

ks — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:13:16 +0000

I do not know why the goverment donot banned smoking.i donot belive because of people already smoke, as they allow 18 years old teenager to smoke, nor i believe is for singapore economic(although facts remains part of singapore ecom is from selling cigarettes)as the government increase tax and about to open casino and new resort to earn big bucks from the tourist. I believe the government should banned smoking totally

By: betterment

betterment — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:08:47 +0000

Means testing may seem like a new idea, but it has already been used by the government in various sectors. Our differentiated scale for income tax is a form of means testing. I support the notion where the higher income earners contribute higher taxes to state coffers and help fund the cost of government and civil service operations. With the introduction of GST, more than 70% of Singaporeans do not have to pay taxes, thus the tax burden lies on the shoulder of the remaining 30% of the citizens. Shouldn’t the government having collected taxes from the citizens treat all its’ people equally and fairly and not discriminate anyone based on race, language, religion or income levels?

Public housing is another segment where means testing is applied. With income ceiling set for HDB housing, the higher income earners do not enjoy the benefits of subsidized housing. With 80% of Singaporean living in HDB flats, again, the remaining 20% is deprived of state subsidy for housing.

The imminent introduction of means testing for public health hospitalization is another punishment for the minority group of Singaporeans. The minister has alluded that income levels and housing types as a possible indicators for means testing. With 70% of Singaporeans not having to pay taxes and 80% living in HDB flats, the new changes will ultimately affect only the 20% higher income earners. Should the higher income earners whom contributed the largest portion of taxes be penalized again and again? It appears that this minority group is treated as second class citizens devoid of any state subsidy. Is this minority group of Singaporeans been abusing the hospitalization scheme to such a large extend that MOH has to implement measures to address them? Why introduce measure that will only affect a minority group of people and the issue is caused by the majority? Shouldn’t this minority group whom has contributed the largest portion of taxes be allowed to gain some subsidized medical care when they fall ill?

It appears that higher income earners are being marginalized and unappreciated in Singapore.

By: Y K Lim

Y K Lim — Mon, 21 May 2007 00:49:55 +0000

In all fairness, over the years the government has tried to improve the overall healthcare system, however in recent years there appears to be much more emphasis placed on revenue and profit as opposed to its obligation to provide adequate subsidy for its citizens. The government has a moral obligation to spend where necessary and maintain its level of subsidy if not more but certainly NOT less as the population ages.

We cannot blame the government if we are overweight, develop lung cancer as a result of smoking etc but what is obligatory on the part of the government is to ensure its people who elect them into office is given due medical care.
No corners should be cut and no economic value should be placed as national healthcare is one of the most important pillars of society.

The government has introduced numerous insurance schemes for its citizens and kudos to the Health Ministers past and present but, the upcoming “means testing” is a troubling thought. According to various quarters of explanation and reasoning, it is aimed at not encouraging the “upper class” people in society to abuse the subsidy. The question is what is the percentage of such abuses as opposed to the damaged done to the broader society. Remember, not all who live in HDB apartments are poor and not all who live in landed properties or private apartments are rich. There are multiple factors to look into.

A message to the Health Minister is while the different Ministries may try to outshine one another in cutting costs and generating revenue and profit, to have this same philosophy in healthcare, is very dangerous as the overall population is much better educated and they can see what’s between the line.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 20 May 2007 14:41:11 +0000

“I hope each individual should take upon himself to take care of himself instead of relying on the government for support.”

It’s a question of whether the government is providing support when the individual needs it, not how the individual can avoid being ill…

By: Kew Kah Fatt

Kew Kah Fatt — Sun, 20 May 2007 06:27:29 +0000

Health care is personal but people like to blame the government for their problem.

If you like to smoke and later get lung cancer, you still want to blame the government for your illness ? If you have a sweet tooth, later you get diebeties, you still want to blame the government for your illness ? If you like salty food and later get high blood pressure, you still want to blame the government for your illness ?

As for accident, it is unavoidable. This is fate.

The problem with the government it that they do not want to really promote healthy living. Have you seen any minister or MP coming out to promote vegetarian food ? What they want to do is to solve the present problem they face. They don’t foresee future problems. Like obesity, it was not a problem 30 years ago, but now it is the very problem in primary and secondary schools. The culprit is the promotion of milk drinking in primary school. Asian don’t drink milk as a beverage like coffee and tea, but in the West, it is their diet. So once Asians get used to milk, they either get fat or thin. Thin is for those who have reaction to drinking milk.

By changing habit of diet to suit Western culture, you can turn your body system upside down, unless you take it from baby to adulthood. Then the body system is tuned to the new diet.

I hope each individual should take upon himself to take care of himself instead of relying on the government for support.

By: Eddie Loh

Eddie Loh — Fri, 18 May 2007 03:48:28 +0000

The root of the problem is our Government is spending less and less money on Health Care for Singaporeans. She is more interested on cost recovery and making huge profit out of Singaporeans by sucking our CPF money dry so that Singaporeans will work to death.