[h=2]Constructive Politics in Parliament[/h]
May 31st, 2014 |
Author: Contributions
Last night’s news on Parliament was dominated by a new find
in Puthucheary. He came across as the smartest MP in the house. He was on his
feet many times, even his speech on healthcare was allowed extra time to expound
on his wisdom. The ministers were in awe, mesmerized by his grasp on the issues
facing healthcare. He seemed to have all the answers especially on what Gerald
Giam had to say. And Gerald Giam was as good as saying nothing but sound
bites.
Gerald Giam made two points which I thought were very pertinent and should be
seriously considered by the MOH instead of being brushed off lightly by some
wise cracks. The first point was the American private
healthcare system. Gerald told the house that the American govt made it a law
for excessive profits from health insurance to be ploughed back to reduce the
premiums paid by the insured.
This point was hastily dismissed by Puthucheary with no second thought. It
was a private insurance scheme and should not be used in our discussion on a
public healthcare scheme. Why not? Be it private or public healthcare scheme,
excessive profits must be moderated and best returned to the insured. Otherwise
the insurance agencies would be raising higher and higher premiums to make more
and more profits. I think this is a very important point for our govt and
private insurers to take note of and to prevent premiums from running away.
The second point by Gerald, actually related to the first,
is that the claims made in our public health insurance scheme came to 63% of
premiums collected, i.e giving a huge surplus of 37% to the insurers. The
American private health insurance’s claim was 82% and the American govt was
already finding the profit too high.
This point was again pooh-poohed by Puthucheary. What is wrong with
collecting more premiums and more surplus? What? Who said that? Nothing wrong
with collecting unnecessary higher premiums from the masses? Puthucheary’s logic
was that there were too many unthinkable and contingencies that could happen and
could raise the claims unexpectedly. It was good to have a big cushion of excess
premiums. Ya, I know that too, let’s add another 20% to the premium.
This kind of thinking I can agree if I am prepared to worry about when the
sun would not shine again or when the next epidemic will hit. We must have a lot
of extras, a lot of fats, just in case. No wonder the CPF minimum sums keeps
going higher and higher. No wonder the nation’s reserves for a rainy day must
keep increasing; even if we have 20 trillion will not be enough. No wonder some
ministers are saying their salaries are not enough.
It is okay to collect more premiums. It is okay to increase the minimum sums
to $1m. Who can dispute against such logic? But who is paying? Whose pocket will
be hurt?
What is wrong with collecting more money from the people?
I am worried when we have so clever people in the govt who wants to worry
about everything under heaven, every unknown, and wanting to provide for them
and make the people pay for their concerns. I know their hearts are good and in
the right place.
Who is indulging in constructive politics and who is indulging in destructive
politics?
Chua Chin Leng aka redbean
* The writer blogs at [url]http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com[/URL]
Last night’s news on Parliament was dominated by a new find
in Puthucheary. He came across as the smartest MP in the house. He was on his
feet many times, even his speech on healthcare was allowed extra time to expound
on his wisdom. The ministers were in awe, mesmerized by his grasp on the issues
facing healthcare. He seemed to have all the answers especially on what Gerald
Giam had to say. And Gerald Giam was as good as saying nothing but sound
bites.
Gerald Giam made two points which I thought were very pertinent and should be
seriously considered by the MOH instead of being brushed off lightly by some
wise cracks. The first point was the American private
healthcare system. Gerald told the house that the American govt made it a law
for excessive profits from health insurance to be ploughed back to reduce the
premiums paid by the insured.
This point was hastily dismissed by Puthucheary with no second thought. It
was a private insurance scheme and should not be used in our discussion on a
public healthcare scheme. Why not? Be it private or public healthcare scheme,
excessive profits must be moderated and best returned to the insured. Otherwise
the insurance agencies would be raising higher and higher premiums to make more
and more profits. I think this is a very important point for our govt and
private insurers to take note of and to prevent premiums from running away.
The second point by Gerald, actually related to the first,
is that the claims made in our public health insurance scheme came to 63% of
premiums collected, i.e giving a huge surplus of 37% to the insurers. The
American private health insurance’s claim was 82% and the American govt was
already finding the profit too high.
This point was again pooh-poohed by Puthucheary. What is wrong with
collecting more premiums and more surplus? What? Who said that? Nothing wrong
with collecting unnecessary higher premiums from the masses? Puthucheary’s logic
was that there were too many unthinkable and contingencies that could happen and
could raise the claims unexpectedly. It was good to have a big cushion of excess
premiums. Ya, I know that too, let’s add another 20% to the premium.
This kind of thinking I can agree if I am prepared to worry about when the
sun would not shine again or when the next epidemic will hit. We must have a lot
of extras, a lot of fats, just in case. No wonder the CPF minimum sums keeps
going higher and higher. No wonder the nation’s reserves for a rainy day must
keep increasing; even if we have 20 trillion will not be enough. No wonder some
ministers are saying their salaries are not enough.
It is okay to collect more premiums. It is okay to increase the minimum sums
to $1m. Who can dispute against such logic? But who is paying? Whose pocket will
be hurt?
What is wrong with collecting more money from the people?
I am worried when we have so clever people in the govt who wants to worry
about everything under heaven, every unknown, and wanting to provide for them
and make the people pay for their concerns. I know their hearts are good and in
the right place.
Who is indulging in constructive politics and who is indulging in destructive
politics?
Chua Chin Leng aka redbean
* The writer blogs at [url]http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com[/URL]
