Myth Or Magic - The Singapore Healthcare System a book by Lim, Jeremy

[winnipegjets]

Tell me about it. It's pretty much the same in NZ. That's the problem with the one man, one vote system as there are more losers in this world than there are winners.

Why any sane Singaporean would want a similar system simply boggles the mind.

Too bad then ...the majority of the world are losers ...so either you live by their rules or create your own kingdom of winners ...then you could become a loser in that kingdom.

 

[winnipegjets]

the problem with california, a.k.a. welfare state of the u.s., is that state officials and politicians know with factual data that the state is hemorrhaging taxpayers' money on welfare and fraud, yet they can't stop it as doing so is tantamount to disenfranchising a massive voter base and inviting political suicide. welfare recipients and fraudsters have become a major voting bloc, so powerful that they can derail any fiscally conservative politician's chances of getting into office. the two, welfare and fraud, work hand in glove to siphon money off state coffers and hard earned taxpayers' contribution to the state. to repeal it, it will require a war. once it is legislated, becomes law and is implemented, it's near impossible to turn back the clock. it's like gourmet food has turned into shit, and trying to present shit as a palatable "free" cuisine. :o

That's a whole lot of generalization and assumptions made. Conservatives have southern mentality ...that's why they don't even bother about California. Red-necks just love it in Texas, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama.

 

[winnipegjets]

Expecting other citizens to pay for things on your behalf does not build communities. All it does is build a culture of sloth and a sense of entitlement.

That's sharing. Either you choose to live on an island or you chip in. That's how communities are build. Yes, there will always be some who take advantage. And that even happens in society where everyone is for himself.
Everyone is entitled to a middle class existence if he plays by the rules. When the rules are titled towards the rich and business, that's where laws need to be put in to stop the exploitation.

The social welfare system that sinkies are clamoring for is not even part of Asian or Chinese culture. The modern version as we know it is an Ang Moh invention and is barely 100 years old.

Thanks to the angmo, sinkees can feel rich.

Why any Sinkie would want the PAP to adopt an Ang Moh system of government is beyond me.

Because there is no better system out there just like democracy sucks but other systems are worse.

 

[winnipegjets]

the problem with california, a.k.a. welfare state of the u.s., is that state officials and politicians know with factual data that the state is hemorrhaging taxpayers' money on welfare and fraud, yet they can't stop it as doing so is tantamount to disenfranchising a massive voter base and inviting political suicide. welfare recipients and fraudsters have become a major voting bloc, so powerful that they can derail any fiscally conservative politician's chances of getting into office. the two, welfare and fraud, work hand in glove to siphon money off state coffers and hard earned taxpayers' contribution to the state. to repeal it, it will require a war. once it is legislated, becomes law and is implemented, it's near impossible to turn back the clock. it's like gourmet food has turned into shit, and trying to present shit as a palatable "free" cuisine. :o

You think welfare is alot of money ...it is just about $500 per month. Tell me, what kind of existence is that?
You want to know the biggest fraud - it is the health care providers. Look at the Time magazine report 'Bitter Pill'.

 

[3_M]

By making it universal, every person is insured and nobody left out, we minimise the financial burden of getting sick. Of course, we end up paying more because the insurance company can no longer just choose healthy people only to insure. In some ways it is like compulsory charity...but as a Singaporeans I'm willing to help others so long as the level of profit in insurance companies is capped at an acceptable level....better still the govt administer it and go for a zero-profit scheme.

Universal insurance is horrible suggestion from SDP and PAP.

I don't see why should people who leads a healthy lifestyle and therefore less likely to fall sick and live longer should pay more than people who don't.I would think it better for public healthcare to go for zero-profit and gov to waive land cost and premises rental for public hospital and clinics. Also medisave contributions for both employee and employers should increased from the current level.

 

[yellowarse]

Universal insurance is horrible suggestion from SDP and PAP.

Even with increased Medisave contributions and zero-profit government-run public health facilities, without pooling risks and delivering health care from a big enough central fund (which must be paid eventually by taxpayers) patients still can't afford treatment for catastrophic illnesses, e.g. expensive cancer treatments, 6 months' stay in the ICU. No matter how much Medisave you have, you can't afford, say, $500,000 for a liver transplant op plus hospitalization plus drugs.

You may lead a healthy lifestyle, but there's no guarantee that something major will not happen to you, since the genesis of many illnesses is beyond your control. Environmental pollution, genes, accidents and old age play a great part too.

Insurance is basically a hedge against uncommon but hugely expensive events. Same reason why we have motor insurance. The most careful drivers may get involved in accidents through no fault of theirs – without insurance how's anyone going to afford a large repair bill?

 

[Leongsam]

No matter how much Medisave you have, you can't afford, say, $500,000 for a liver transplant op plus hospitalization plus drugs.

Nobody should be entitled to things that they cannot afford and that includes liver transplants.

Providing basic health care is all well and good but to expect a system where cutting edge medical technology is universally available to EVERYONE is simply ridiculous.

 

[yellowarse]

Nobody should be entitled to things that they cannot afford and that includes liver transplants.

Providing basic health care is all well and good but to expect a system where cutting edge medical technology is universally available to EVERYONE is simply ridiculous.

What is cutting edge today becomes commonplace tomorrow, but no less expensive. Are you going to deny a patient a shot at a cure for early stage cancer just because chemotherapy (evidence-based, not experimental) costs a bomb? Or long-term rehab for a debilitated stroke patient? Long-term renal dialysis for the thousands of kidney patients out there until a transplant is available?

Putting aside new-fangled, unproven and experimental therapies, many of our current treatment modalities cost a lot of money because of the duration of treatment required, prolonged hospitalization, multi-disciplinary/specialty involvement, prohibitive cost of drugs, labour and land cost. The govt can do something about land cost, but not much else.

 

[Leongsam]

What is cutting edge today becomes commonplace tomorrow, but no less expensive. Are you going to deny a patient a shot at a cure for early stage cancer just because chemotherapy (evidence-based, not experimental) costs a bomb? Or long-term rehab for a debilitated stroke patient? Long-term renal dialysis for the thousands of kidney patients out there until a transplant is available?

Transplants are extremely complex and expensive procedures. The idea that EVERYONE is entitled to a transplant if their kidneys fail is just ludicrous.

Imagine some homeless guy living in the streets, mentally unsound, borderline retard whose only companion is the booze bottle. He collapses in the middle of the road one day and is taken to hospital. Tests show his kidneys have failed.

You're telling me that the taxpayer should fork out $100,000 for dialysis and another $200,000 for a kidney transplant so he can return to the streets and go back to the bottle??

Let's get real here.

 

[yellowarse]

Imagine some homeless guy living in the streets, mentally unsound, borderline retard whose only companion is the booze bottle. He collapses in the middle of the road one day and is taken to hospital. Tests show his kidneys have failed.

You're telling me that the taxpayer should fork out $100,000 for dialysis and another $200,000 for a kidney transplant so he can return to the streets and go back to the bottle??

You picked a loser here. It could very well have been the other guy who earns an honest day's living as a cleaner whose kidneys have failed. He can't afford $300k; somebody's got to pick up the tab.

He doesn't deserve to live?

 

[Leongsam]

You picked a loser here. It could very well have been the other guy who earns an honest day's living as a cleaner whose kidneys have failed. He can't afford $300k; somebody's got to pick up the tab.

He doesn't deserve to live?

Some people deserve to live. Others don't. Doctors aren't in a position to decide who is virtuous enough and who isn't. Neither are governments.

That's the reason why we have a system that allocates scarce and costly resources. It called "price". Those who can afford to pay the asking price receive the service and/or product. Those who can't are out of the running. It may not be entirely fair. It may not be moral. It may not be perfect. However, it is a system that works better than any other.

 

[Poomer]

In the USA, state politics has far more influence on the lives of the people. Compare California with Texas or Nevada.

California is along the coast, while Texas and Nevada are inland desert states. You mean the reason why most of the state of Texas or Nevada are made up of deserts is because of state politics?

 

[yellowarse]

That's the reason why we have a system that allocates scarce and costly resources. It called "price". Those who can afford to pay the asking price receive the service and/or product. Those who can't are out of the running. It may not be entirely fair. It may not be moral. It may not be perfect. However, it is a system that works better than any other.

That's ONE way of organizing human societies – where resources are allocated by price to those who can afford it; such a system therefore privileges those who have the unique ability to make money (through straight or crooked means). A rich minority not only benefit, but hoard the resources and live a life of decadence and indulgence while the rest eke out a piteous existence.

The OTHER way would be for everyone to pool and share resources, so that no one lacks for basic needs and amenities and everyone lives in dignity (not luxury). Of course some bums and losers get a free ride, but by and large most decent folk – who may contribute in their own way to community but not make a lot of money - get taken care of as well. No excesses, no luxuries, but no poverty, no indigence also.

Which way you choose depends on how you view life: is it a competitive individual struggle in which only the fittest survive and take all the spoils, or is it one of co-operation and sharing as a community?

 

[OverTheCounter]

Nobody should be entitled to things that they cannot afford and that includes liver transplants.

Providing basic health care is all well and good but to expect a system where cutting edge medical technology is universally available to EVERYONE is simply ridiculous.

Insurance has a role in everyone's life. Even if you can afford the treatment, you should still be insured so that your wealth does not get wiped out should the treatment be very expensive.

Cutting edge technology should not be available to everyone automatically, but for those willing to pay the price of insurance, it should be.

 

[eatshitndie]

California is along the coast, while Texas and Nevada are inland desert states. You mean the reason why most of the state of Texas or Nevada are made up of deserts is because of state politics?

texas is not an inland state. it has a sizable coastline. it is also a border state with mexico, same as california, arizona, and new mexico. due to these borders, these states are flooded by illegal immigrants from central and south america more than any other states. however, california gets the lion share due to her liberal and welfare-friendly policies. arizona enacts her own laws to illegitimize illegal immigrants by refusing them driver licenses, jobs, healthcare, aid, and even going to the extent of allowing city, county and state law enforcement entities to arrest illegals if they cannot produce evidence of legal residence. they are then detained and deported. of course, arizona stepped on federal jurisdiction, a turf fight ensued, and it went to the supreme court. arizona illegals, destitute and poor have mostly migrated to california after the crackdown. same with nevada, except that the migration from nevada to cal are mostly poor, homeless, jobless legal residents and citizens due to the generous welfare and availability of aid in cal. the state of nevada herself ships the downtrodden, retards, lunatics and handicapped to cal by the busloads to relieve herself of these useless bums. cal sues nevada for the dumping, and the lawsuit is still active. economic refugees and welfare seekers in texas also make their way on interstate 10 to california. in fact, california is attracting most of the country's runaways, homeless and substance abuse addicts looking for a handout. many end up in sf because of cash and food stamp handouts during frank jordan's and willie brown's mayorships. take away the handouts, and they will stop cumming.

 

[Leongsam]

or is it one of co-operation and sharing as a community?

It was tried in many countries and it was a disaster.

We don't need to go there again.

 

[Leongsam]

many end up in sf because of cash and food stamp handouts during frank jordan's and willie brown's mayorships. take away the handouts, and they will stop cumming.

Thanks for explaining on my behalf. I'm often at my wits end trying to respond to extremely ill informed characters who don't even have a basic understanding of the issues or the general knowledge to needed to make sense.

How the issue of State governance evoked a response about the differences in the flora and fauna and coastlines is beyond me.

 

[OverTheCounter]

It was tried in many countries and it was a disaster.

We don't need to go there again.

I am very grateful to the government for making MediShield compulsory. Those idiots who don't believe in insurance and who saddle their offspring with huge medical bills will be taken care of from their own CPF savings. I couldn't ask for a better deal.

Don't worry, we're not going the western route of disastrous healthcare policies. Being rich in Singapore still has its privileges, with all the niche healthcare facilities and short waiting times.

 

[OverTheCounter]

SDP sycophants will buy.

Meanwhile the other parties will continue to advance and win seats in parliament.

Is Jeremy Lim from the SDP? Where do you get your facts from?

 

[OverTheCounter]

It was tried in many countries and it was a disaster.

We don't need to go there again.

Dr Jeremy Lim is definitely not in support of the western model of healthcare, which as you've noted has ended up in disaster.

I think we can safely conclude there is unanimity across the political spectrum that “free healthcare” in the model of the original English National Health Service is not for Singapore. -- http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/only-one-right-question-ask
​