Monday, May 26, 2008 18:00
Medishield – Why burden the elderly further?
In Main Stories, Our Columnists, Top Story, Uncle Leong • 748 views • 15 Comments
Uniquely Singapore
Leong Sze Hian
In the Channel NewsAsia report, “MediShield premiums to go up from December 1”, and the Ministry of Health’s press release on 27 April, the government is increasing MediShield premiums from 1 December.
The hike will be by as much as $480 a year for older Singaporeans.
Whilst the deductible stays the same for those under age 80, at $1,500 for Class B2 and $1,000 for Class C, it will be raised to S$3,000 for Class B2 and S$2,000 for Class C for those aged 80 to 85. This is an increase of 100 per cent for those 80 to 85 years old.
Why is the government raising the Medishield premiums by $480 and the deductible for these older and elderly Singaporeans?
As it is likely that those Singaporeans in this age group may have more frequent and larger medical bills, why are we increasing their financial burden?
At that advanced age, it may also be more likely that their retirement financial resources may have diminished, and thus the financial strain may generally be more acute for these octogenarians.
What’s the point of topping-up the Medisave account of those age 81 and above by an extra $100 to $550, which was only announced a week before the revelation that the MediShield deductible will be increased by up to $1,500 and premiums by up to $480 a year? The increase of $1,500 is 173 per cent more than their one-time Medisave top-up!
Those who are aged 80 may be left in a bind, because they don’t qualify for the higher Medisave top-up, but are affected by the higher deductible (deductible is based on policy year as of age next birthday), and they are also not eligible for the raised annual Medisave withdrawal limit from $800 to $1,150.
Perhaps the government should be reminded that Healthcare inflation continues to be one of the main concerns for Singaporeans and that general inflation in Singapore hit a 27-year-high of 7.5 per cent just last month, in April.
Also, the government revealed in February a budget surplus of $6.45 billion. So, why add a further burden to our elderly Singaporeans?
Who will be footing the bill for the IRs?
I also refer to media reports about the $5.25 billion credit facility for the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort. (“$5.25b credit facility for Marina Bay Sands“, Straits Times, Feb 29)
In this connection, the funding of the other IR is a record for Genting and one of the largest syndicated credit deals in Singapore’s banking history (“Genting secures $4.2b loans for S’pore casino“, Straits Times Feb 11).
Against widespread disapproval of having two casinos in Singapore, and their possible social ills, one of the most compelling reasons cited for allowing them was that it would bring in a huge amount of foreign investments.
The Straits Times report said:
DBS Bank, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking are the lead arrangers, underwriters and bookrunners for the loans, Genting said.
How much of the total of $9.2 billion financing for the two Integrated Resorts (IRs), syndicated by financial institutions in Singapore, will end up as money from Singaporeans, Singapore companies, Singapore financial institutions, and government-linked companies (GLCs)?
Was this issue ever discussed or made known to the public, during the “casino” debate, on the merits of the IRs?
Could this money have been put to better use in alternative strategies for Singapore’s economic development?
Aren’t the risks much higher, when so much of the investment funding comes from Singapore, which itself is contrary to what we were told – that investments for the two IRs would be from foreign investors?
In this connection, in the case of the recent international casinos’ investments in Macau, how much of the funding was syndicated by banks in Macau or China?
———————–
Related posts:
15 Comments
MichaelEng
ayamb
Whats new. Only know how to make money for their own benefit and further stress the poor.Where is the care?? All those who vote for them should think very hard for the future.
blackfeline
more like Medi Shit!
Harrison
Fellow Singaporeans,
Enough of self-pitiness and resigning to PAP’s unjustified policies. We have to spread the message and be vocal about our disagreements. Only then can we see changes for the betterment of Singaporeans and their future generations.
We certainly do not want to be led into becoming an immigrants’ island where if the current trend continues, the ruling party will be given a free hand to control the nation for their own gains which is – the rich will be the rulers and masters. All others will be FIRST WORLD servants and slaves, surviving to benefit the rich only.
It’s a long march towards the next GE. Do not be complacent, for the battle of the minds is an on-going process.
DO YOUR PART AND MARCH AS ONE!
The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Whatever the insurance scheme the poor and the frails are at the losing end. it doesn’t matter who, be it insurance agents , the insurers or the garment.
The increase in Deductible certainly make it tougher for the insurance to kick in. Our seniors who had build up the Singapore today certainly don’t deserve such treatment.
If the government gives them money to be topped up into their Medisave? Won’t the money be just enough for them to pay that 1 year of additional increased premium? When it comes to claims, won’t the money be used to pay the hospital bill because of the raised deductible?
Singapore is not known to be a welfare state and we don’t expect them to be, but for our weak, fragile and poor senior citizens, especially for those above 80yr old. Hope our government will treat them better and don’t be too “Calculative” towards them.
Adrian Khiat
http://akhiat.blogspot.com
Leong Sze Hian
Hi MichaelEng
I think you can still find my earlier articles on MediShield – click TOC Classic – search leong sze hian medishield
Cheers
Leong Sze Hian
fools
what do u expect from a garmen who only want more money for themselves and put up ‘ FOR SHOW
retribution soon
what do u expect from a garmen who only want more money for themselves and put up ‘ FOR SHOW KIND OF HANDOUT FOR ELDER’ . I believe ‘ u people ‘ couldn’t care a hoot about these old folks and push all responsibilities back to the families that owns them, or put them in old folks home provided that their family can afford it. i’m just sick of the policies ‘ you people ‘ vomit out without much compassion. u people are as good as abandoning ‘ yr parent’ who also help build singapore to what it is now. if i abondon my old folks like you do, i’m afraid of retribution. aren’t you afraid ???
History tells me this
The goverment will give away more money in the next budget year but end up taking more more money after the “gift”.
hongjun
http://hongjun.blogspot.com/
simpleway
I refer to your comments on “Who will be footing the bill for the IRs?”
You are spot on to raise the question of the extent of Singapore stakeholders money will be involved. Another compelling justification given by the gahmen, more specifically by LKY, is that the foreign investors will be putting in all the money and hence take all the risks, and Singapore money will not be at risk. But we can see today that this is a lie.
Singapore banks not only bankroll the projects using money funded by deposits from Singaporeans, Singaporeans are major shareholders of these Singapore banks and hence are exposed to the lending risks, and Singapore Inc and investors are major shareholders in the Singapore investors in the project, including Genting International which is a Singapore-listed company.
If you add these all up, then Singapore is actually the major stakeholder in these projects contrary to what we have been assured of by the gahmen.
Profitably and returns on investments on these pojects are becoming less assured given the weak financial and economic outlook in coming years plus the fact that increasing number of Asian and neighbouring countries like South Korea, Vietnam and Bintan etc are planning or building IRs of their own in localities far superior to ours in terms of cost and natural attractions. It becomes a plausible likelihood that the gahmen might be pressured to allow locals freely into the casinos in due course in the name of financial viability for the IRs which are loaded with huge portions of seed money in non-gambling nd less profitable facilities.
Singapore is locked in and tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs will be at stake. Don’t be fooled to think otherwide.
.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 27 May 2008
[...] Healthcare – The Online Citizen: Medishield – Why burden the elderly further? [...]
kimbuaysong
The two IRs will end up like Haw Par Villa, plenty of taxpayers’ money down the drain.
Pay And Pay
why burden the elderly ah? They want them to die sooner mah!
Geriatricide just take up a new face in Singapore.
Mr Leong, you have previously discussed the profitability of Medi-Shield in an article which I can no longer find in TOC.
The payout from medishield ($112,823 million) is much more than the premiums ($229.783 million) collected as reflected in CPF’s 2006 annual report. The balance of the medishield fund is $925,766 million.
I find the argument put forth to justify the need to raise the premium and deductible for older folks appalling.