• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

GST needs to increase to 50% just to pay for elderly healthcare costs alone by 2030.

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
Singapore: GST needs to increase to 50% just to pay for elderly healthcare costs alone by 2030.

Just 2% increase is really just PEANUTS and really MEDIOCRE. (As Emeritus Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong will surely say .https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...leaders-too-mediocre-to-become-pap-ministers/ )

Each 1% of GST will raise just approx S$1.5 billion in taxes: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/go...revenue-in-fy2017-up-nearly-5-from-a-year-ago

But Singapore elderly healthcare costs alone will hit S$66 billion by 2030, therefore, GST needs to increase by at least 44% to raise the S$66 billion p.a. for elderly healthcare costs alone:

Elderly health costs to rise tenfold by 2030: Report
The findings on elderly healthcare costs could influence government policies and decisions on healthcare infrastructure spending as well as personal insurance and retirement planning.
ST_20160825_JTELDERLY_2546954.jpg

The findings on elderly healthcare costs could influence government policies and decisions on healthcare infrastructure spending as well as personal insurance and retirement planning.PHOTO: TIFFANY GOH FOR THE STRAITS TIMES
PUBLISHED AUG 25, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT
Each senior in S'pore will need average of $51k a year, the highest figure in Asia-Pacific
Janice Tai
Elderly healthcare costs in Singapore are projected to rise tenfold over the next 15 years to more than US$49 billion ($66 billion) annually, according to a report.
This means an average of US$37,427 will be spent on healthcare for each elderly person by 2030. This is the highest in the Asia-Pacific region, just ahead of Australia.

The report was released yesterday at the launch of Marsh & McLennan Companies' new Asia-Pacific Risk Centre, which is supported by the Economic Development Board. The firm provides professional services such as risk management.
The US$49 billion figure was derived by taking into consideration demographic changes, long-term care costs and medical cost inflation. It includes public expenditure, private insurance and out-of-pocket spending.
The report estimated that US$5 billion was spent on healthcare for the elderly last year as a senior citizen's healthcare expenditure is estimated to be four times that of an average person's. By 2030, the healthcare expenditure for each senior is estimated to rise from US$8,196 in 2015 to US$37,427.

MODEST ESTIMATE
It's a conservative estimate given that the numbers do not take into account indirect costs, such as transport, and opportunity costs from caregivers' time... It also assumes that we have the same ready access to cheap foreign labour which may not be the case in the future.
DR JEREMY LIM, a partner in Oliver Wyman global health practice, on the findings.
"It's a conservative estimate given that the numbers do not take into account indirect costs, such as transport, and opportunity costs from caregivers' time," said Dr Jeremy Lim, a partner in Oliver Wyman global health practice.
"It also assumes that we have the same ready access to cheap foreign labour which may not be the case in the future."
Dr Ng Wai Chong, chief of clinical affairs at Tsao Foundation, agreed. He felt the figures might even be an underestimate if the current health and social care systems are not improved and people do not manage their own health more proactively.
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said last year that healthcare spending in Singapore is expected to rise from over $9 billion last year to over $13 billion in 2020.
These are just public expenditure figures, the Ministry of Finance confirmed yesterday.
The implications of these new numbers are wide-ranging, said Mr Wolfram Hedrich, executive director of the Asia-Pacific Risk Centre.
"Our findings will influence government policies and decisions on healthcare infrastructure spending. Individuals need to carefully consider how well-prepared they are to fund their retirement healthcare needs, especially given the limited range of affordable insurance products," he said.
Dr Lim said the proposed review of ElderShield - announced during last Sunday's National Day Rally - is timely as it covers only the severely disabled and the payout is modest.
"We can also look at other new solutions such as having reverse mortgage schemes to allow people to monetise their housing assets to pay for healthcare when they are old or allowing the use of MediShield and Medisave overseas if their price points are lower," he added.
Dr Ng said there is a "keen awareness of the risk of rising healthcare costs at the government, community and personal levels".

When asked for its comments on the report, which it received yesterday, the Ministry of Health said it is studying it and will respond at a later time.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has four operating firms - insurance-broking and risk-management firms Marsh and Guy Carpenter as well as consulting firms Mercer and Oliver Wyman
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/elderly-health-costs-to-rise-tenfold-by-2030-report
 
Last edited:

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Progressive taxation lah. GST is regressive tax. The rich should pay more taxes. 70 percent on income above $1 million.
 

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
FINE_01 (HWZ) said:
I tot alot surplus??

Surplus because newly introduced medishield-life draws much more from everyone medisave accounts to pay for hospitalized people: means government healthcare burden is temporarily eased off a bit.

Problem remains that many gahmen around the world (especially PAP) didn't notice the Tsunami of creative and expensive medical devices that corporates will invent and manufacturer and advertise to the population.

E.g. a new artificial heart (usually as an interim measure to await a heart transplant) costs upwards of €140,000 and more on maintenance monitoring etc and can allow patient to survive at least 4 more years.

"The Carmat artificial heart is expected to cost about 140,000 to 180,000 Euros (or $191,000 to $246,000)."
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/inno...beats-inside-a-75-year-old-patient-180948280/

Before, chemo therapy may be for just 6 months and the patient mostly just died after prolonging his life a few more months with the chemo treatment. Nowadays, with more 'effective' targeted therapy, the patient will live much much longer, but is NOT cured, and will need the USD 130,000 p.a. drug for LIFE to continuously suppress the cancer: "these drugs can cost around $130,000 per year and treatment may be continued indefinitely - compared with $60,000 to $100,000 for a single, six-month course of chemotherapy" https://ecancer.org/news/10539-targ...increase-the-costs-of-leukaemia-treatment.php

But to buy votes, PAP government says:

"We want all Singaporeans to have access to affordable, high quality healthcare," Mr Lee said. "No one should be denied medical care because they cannot afford it. This is my commitment to you." [Lee Hsien Loong, NDR 2018] https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...xtended-to-all-sporeans-with-chronic-ailments
gbKVRaq.jpg


And since GST is the PAP favorite go to solution for any extra revenue, the only way to raise the S$66 billion is to raise GST to 50% obviously.
 
Last edited:

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
frenchbriefs(HWZ) said:
elderly healthcare cost to rise tenfold in fifteen years?

i cant think of any investment in the world that can rise tenfold in fifteen years even if u use 200% margin leverage....but healthcare cost can?

u know what since these mofo PAP govt are such geniuses,why dont they take 10 or 20 billion and invest in healthcare and pharmaceutical companies now.....in fifteen years time they will be filthy rich beyond imagination.....

Spending doesn't mean profits although the USA venture capitalist are pouring in funds by the bucket load.

Truth be told, I see it like post fire public rebuilding effort: like Bukit Ho Swee fire, u re-build the same squatter settlement again and AGAIN, and REPEAT the exact same pro-fire hazard risks with zero improvement in design, only to see the whole place burned down over and over again.

All the work and effort is spent on undoing what was totally avoidable/ preventable damages to begin with.

3rd world countries won't buy these expensive medical devices and treatments but Singapore will have to provide because patients can consult private/ even internet specialist but seek treatment at government hospitals and demand the same complex treatments which PAP government promised that nobody would be denied of.

Such is the way that Singapore healthcare works.

100% firefighting, 0% fire prevention, thus the ridiculously large national healthcare costs that we have, and not that it was unavoidable (/fated) to begin with:


ST_20170310_GANKIMYONG_8_2995131.jpg

“If you look around, our investments in health promotion and diseases prevention, I think... it is actually significantly lower than the amount of money we spend on treating diseases,” he (Minister Gan Kim Yong) said.
: Due to a lack of "holistic approach towards health promotion, taking into account how can we empower consumers so that they make the right choice" Empower consumers with holistic approach to healthcare: Gan Kim Yong To address the challenges of non-communicable diseases, Singapore needs to move upstream and find ways to keep the population healthy, said Health Minister Gan Kim Yong at the Ministerial Meeting on Universal Health Coverage TODAY (11 Feb 2015).http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/empower-consumers-holistic-approach-healthcare-gan-kim-yong
 

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
yamakazi51 (HWZ) said:
No social welfare the GST already keeps increasing, with social welfare you won’t have anything left for take home pay. And I don’t like my tax money used to support lazy bums,

Actually, social welfare in Singapore is also about the poor giving $$$ to the rich people to spend on themselves, like how the savings of poor people are paradoxically siphoned to be spent on the rich people instead:

cherry6;117893855 said:
Medishield-life: Rich people ROB poor people's life savings in Singapore.

Rich Singaporeans are competing to claim 2.03786x more than middle class, yet medishield-life is supposed to be pre-funded by all, INCLUDING the poor http://www.asiaone.com/health/role-pre-funding ; why do the poor ironically and paradoxically subsidise the rich in the medishield-life insurance scheme?

According to MOH stats, "Nine per cent of full rider policyholders made claims in 2016, compared to 7 per cent of those without riders"
"According to MOH, the average bill claimed by a full rider policyholder cost S$9,093 in 2016, about 58.5 per cent higher than that of an average IP holder (S$5,738). Patients with riders were more likely to visit private hospitals than those without riders, contributing to a bulk of this differential. "


Calculation:
Since hospitalization claims rate for rider holder is 9% as opposed to 7% for non-rider holders and also 1.585X more for rider holders,
Increase payout value to rider holders= 9/7 X 1.585= 2.03786 times that of average IP holders.

Since private insurers selling IP plans make claims from (and basic premium payments) to MOH wrt medishield-life, it can be said that those with full riders make in excess of 2X claims from the common medishield-life insurance pool.

Pls note that the actual multiple may actually be even higher than 2.03786 times, since MOH own definition of the 'average IP' holder is likely to also include BOTH partial and full rider holders, the latter of whom make up 30% of the IP pool which in itself is constituted by the more wealthy 68% of Singaporeans.

It was also reported that poorer Singaporeans are unable to receive proper public healthcare cancer treatments because even the public transport costs to and from hospital may turn out to be a hindrance in itself.

It is also noted that the MOH is subsidising many wealthy Singaporeans indiscriminately just based on their declared household address and income levels even though by the fact that these Singaporeans can afford not just IP plans or worse, even very expensive full rider add-on plans, remains prima facie evidence that (MOH is squandering state funds to buy votes given that) by their expensive taste for private healthcare and also even zero payment riders, these wealthy folks are indeed very well to do.

In its inception, MOH explained the huge jump in compulsory medishield-life premiums over the old optional medishield plans by using 'prefunding' (with the option of future premium discounts and refunds) as the reason why basic medishield-life premiums for the young increased so much. Yet, short of doing IP plan insurance companies a business favour and helping them mediate amongst themselves an agreement to cease the sale of loss making full rider for medishield-life IP plans (and coincidentally reducing the population of (double value claims) full rider holders in the process), MOH is doing precious little independently to lead in reducing the raw deal that medishield-life especially gives to the poor ('prefunding') and the SQUANDERING OF STATE FUNDS, aka increase in GST. Perhaps, for a start, all basic medishield-life subsidies to anybody with an IP rider should be REMOVED with immediate effect and those with IPs, 1year later. Only those on BASIC medishield-life compulsory insurance (and no other hospitalization insurance plans) can qualify for medishield-life premium subsidies of any form.

Ultimately, no medishield-life nor associated integrated plans should be valid at any private hospital because those Singaporeans who wish to have private insurance coverage are like those who buy/ invest property in foreign jurisdictions: they still have to serve NS in Singapore. But if they have robbers or terrorist inside their FOREIGN properties, they will call the police of that foreign country in which their home is burgled; the Singapore police force cannot help them with anything that happens on foreign soil. Likewise, all medishield-life related insurance policies shall ONLY apply in PUBLIC hospitals. Those who want private healthcare, they have to buy SEPARATE insurance coverage and only AFTER they have paid up their annual basic medishield-life premiums because medishield-life should be a PUBLIC hospitals only based healthcare insurance policy.

In short, medishield-life funds is being excessively squandered on private healthcare use, its current structure is a raw deal for poorer Singaporeans and a big extravagance of government funds with the consequence that GST has to be unnecessarily raised for all. Ultimately, the poor are suffering excessively under this PAP poorly conceived and wastefully executed public healthcare insurance plan.

The original source URL of this thread is at https://forums.fuckwarezone.com.sg/...oples-life-savings-5946620.html#post117893855
 
Top