I don’t think this is a fair comparison, because CPF forces us to save our own money for health / medicare, this means the government can afford to spend a lot less than countries like the US.

We live long because we cant afford to gorge ourselves fat like the americans, life expectancy isnt just due to our health service.

The WSJ compares healthcare outcomes, and is not a reliable indicator of the performance of the healthcare system itself. Favourable life expectancies could be due to fundamental differences in culture, diet and lifestyle, rather than the product of a government’s policies. The way the PAP tries to steal the credit for a healthy population by boasting it as ‘undeniable proof’ that their healthcare policies ‘work’ is downright despicable and underhanded. The credit for it should rightly belong to the good health habits of the good Singaporean people. I do not doubt one bit that the state media or PAP spokespeople will use this WSJ article to parade their so-called ‘achievements’.

“At the same time, Singapore scores better than the U.S. on life expectancy, infant mortality, and other key international measures.”

Sometimes quality is better than quantity

“At the same time, Singapore scores better than the U.S. on life expectancy, infant mortality, and other key international measures.”

I rephrase: Sometimes quality is more important than quantity

I am really very sick of this manner of trying to score points for Singapore by belittling other countries, especially countries that are hundreds of times bigger in terms of land area and population.

There is no way that any comparison between the US (or China and India, etc.), and Singapore can be accurately done. One cannot simply select one single item to compare, without taking into account all other contributing, influencing, and related factors. It is like an ostrich burying its head into the mud and then thinking that it is the best in the world, safe and sound.

“What makes Singapore’s health care work is that it is designed to swim with the market and not against it.”

This statement is just a statement of two assumptions. Firstly, he is assuming that Singapore’s health care works. Secondly, he is assuming that it works because of “the design to swim with the market”. (Btw is there such a thing as a health care market?)

Has Singapore’s health care really worked? Where is the proof to substantiate this? On what basis does one so confidently say that Singapore’s health care works? If it really worked, why are there so many people unable to afford to pay? Why we keep hearing our old folks saying, “In Singapore, you can die but cannot fall ill”? It is an undeniably fact that the medical cost has gone up and up without any respite for the past ten years or so, and even the middle class are now feeling the pinch. At what price are Singaporeans paying for their health care? Is it really that affordable
and reachable for all Singaporeans? I don’t think so.

If our health care worked at all, it is not because of the “design to flow with the market”. It is because there are so many charitable organisations that are doing a very good job of providing free or very low cost medical and health services to the poor, the lower income group, and even the middle income people. And as someone said above, the CPF Medisave and Medishield schemes have also helped in a very big way to lower the government’s health cost. Don’t forget, the CPF money is from the citizens’ own savings, not from the government.

“In macro terms, that means Singaporeans spend only about 4% of GDP on health care — against 17% for the United States.”

The 4 percent of GDP is based on what statistics? Is it just based on Singapore’s government expenditure? Has the expenditure of those Singaporean charitable organisations that provide medical and health services been taken into account? Has the individuals expenditure from their own pocket and from their CPF savings been taken into account? And the US’s 17 percent is based on whose statistics?

” At the same time, Singapore scores better than the U.S. on life expectancy, infant mortality, and other key international measures.”

What has life expectancy and infant mortality rate to do with lower health care costs? Is life expectancy due to better health care at lower cost? I am sure there are many other contributing factors that have to be taken into consideration. And the same goes for infant mortality rate too.

Please, for goodness sake, stop making such narrow and myopic comparisons just to make Singapore looks good.

Recently so much news on pro Singapore.

1. Affordable HDB
2.Local citizens welcome FT and foreigners.
3.Then came the faster and cheaper economy.
4. LUP for PT and HG
5.Now Singapore is better than US?

These journalists are getting more creative.

oh, so does everybody here want US health care plan put in place in Singapore? And I suppose this WSJ – sister paper of FEER – is also busy pushing Singapore government agenda now.