• 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.

Gerald Giam vs. Dr Koh

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
12,730
Points
113
Gerald Giam’s call for a better match between medical insurance premiums collected and payouts in claims has an opponent outside Parliament.

The defeated PAP candidate in the Punggol East by-election and medical director of Capstone Colorectal Surgery Centre, Dr Koh Poh Koon, said Giam had over simplified the issue and underestimated the cost of medical expenses in the coming years.

“Can he predict the next targeted therapy for cancer coming out in the market? Did he know that 10 years ago we would be using PET scans today instead of just plain old X-rays?” asked Koh on his Facebook page.

In his parliamentary speech, the NCMP from the Workers’ Party took issue with the MediShield scheme, saying it collected more premiums than it paid out in claims.

He said that a not-for-profit social insurance scheme like MediShield (loss ratio 63 per cent) should not have a lower loss ratio compared to a commercial insurance scheme like ObamaCare (loss ratio 80 per cent).

He added that potential risks of higher payouts could be managed, as “it is now relatively easy to project likely payouts based on the way medical expenses are trending.”

But Koh emphasised that the cost of medical advancement could not be predicted as easily as what Giam had assumed.

“If we choose to forgo the latest and more cutting edge technology to give us an edge over diseases then yes, we can predict that healthcare costs can be contained.”

But no patient would find it acceptable for doctors to revert to older technologies to save cost, he said.


“As long as we cannot predict what new technologies will surface to change the paradigm of care and set the new standards of care, no one can accurately project the rate of increase in healthcare cost.”

Many took to social media to comment on the issue.

Regional sales specialist Elisabeth Wong said: “Giam spoke from a non-medical perspective. Those who have been monitoring medical trends know that it is not that simple.”

The director of Singapore Mobile App Specialists, Peter Ong, said: “Especially in the medical field, the initial high costs of a new drug or new machine go towards paying for the millions of dollars invested in research. And this high initial cost can vary drastically if there are no similar competitor drugs.”

Agreed, the future cost of drugs and technologies cannot be predicted. So is the solution a mismatch between the premiums collected and the money paid out? There must be a way out of this ideological impasse.

Can we have more views on this, please?

http://theindependent.sg/gerald-giam-vs-dr-koh/
 
So suddenly only doctors can talk about medical issues? They are the only ones who know?
 
Me think to have an equitable Public Insurance policy and to prevent PAP rent seeking behaviour from milking any funds it can get its slimy claws on. I propose a Profit cap for such policies. That way the distribution will be more 'equal'. Like for not for profit organisations, they have a surplus, out of the surplus they keep a certain amount and the rest is returned to the gahmen. For Spore case, the surplus will be contained to lets say 20%. This 20% will be put into a sinking fund. Anything above 20% will be spent back on the members and to increase payout,,,
 
People still pay through the nose and are still dying right?

Me think to have an equitable Public Insurance policy and to prevent PAP rent seeking behaviour from milking any funds it can get its slimy claws on. I propose a Profit cap for such policies. That way the distribution will be more 'equal'. Like for not for profit organisations, they have a surplus, out of the surplus they keep a certain amount and the rest is returned to the gahmen. For Spore case, the surplus will be contained to lets say 20%. This 20% will be put into a sinking fund. Anything above 20% will be spent back on the members and to increase payout,,,
 
Everyone will die,,the issue is the insurance policy is skwed towards PAP getting more money,,this is just 1 more equitable solution,

People still pay through the nose and are still dying right?
 
when you do comparative study among all developed countries, drug costs and diagnostic costs in Singapore could be on the top.
The costs are multi-inflated by ???
 
The number of Malaysian PR and their dependants who crossed the causeway to get their supply of medicine is due to the fact that it is cheap and has a cap. People tell me that an elderly person with a couple prescriptions comes under MY $30 when it can goes pass a SGD $100 in Singapore. One country 2 health cares.
 
Gerald Giam’s call for a better match between medical insurance premiums collected and payouts in claims has an opponent outside Parliament.

The defeated PAP candidate in the Punggol East by-election and medical director of Capstone Colorectal Surgery Centre, Dr Koh Poh Koon, said Giam had over simplified the issue and underestimated the cost of medical expenses in the coming years.

“Can he predict the next targeted therapy for cancer coming out in the market? Did he know that 10 years ago we would be using PET scans today instead of just plain old X-rays?” asked Koh on his Facebook page.

In his parliamentary speech, the NCMP from the Workers’ Party took issue with the MediShield scheme, saying it collected more premiums than it paid out in claims.

He said that a not-for-profit social insurance scheme like MediShield (loss ratio 63 per cent) should not have a lower loss ratio compared to a commercial insurance scheme like ObamaCare (loss ratio 80 per cent).

He added that potential risks of higher payouts could be managed, as “it is now relatively easy to project likely payouts based on the way medical expenses are trending.”

But Koh emphasised that the cost of medical advancement could not be predicted as easily as what Giam had assumed.

“If we choose to forgo the latest and more cutting edge technology to give us an edge over diseases then yes, we can predict that healthcare costs can be contained.”

But no patient would find it acceptable for doctors to revert to older technologies to save cost, he said.


“As long as we cannot predict what new technologies will surface to change the paradigm of care and set the new standards of care, no one can accurately project the rate of increase in healthcare cost.”

Many took to social media to comment on the issue.

Regional sales specialist Elisabeth Wong said: “Giam spoke from a non-medical perspective. Those who have been monitoring medical trends know that it is not that simple.”

The director of Singapore Mobile App Specialists, Peter Ong, said: “Especially in the medical field, the initial high costs of a new drug or new machine go towards paying for the millions of dollars invested in research. And this high initial cost can vary drastically if there are no similar competitor drugs.”

Agreed, the future cost of drugs and technologies cannot be predicted. So is the solution a mismatch between the premiums collected and the money paid out? There must be a way out of this ideological impasse.

Can we have more views on this, please?

http://theindependent.sg/gerald-giam-vs-dr-koh/

moral of the story: for heaven sake don't live so long. ROD at 65 years.
we haven't had a major war since 1945, maybe it is time for another big one.
战争是地球的清道夫。
 
So is Koh implying that the PAP won't raise premiums when cost of treatment rises in future?

If he is, we can all take it as a joke because we know the PAP will make us PAY And PAY.

What a stupid justification of the current rip-off in health premiums!

I hope Koh is smarter as a doctor than a politician ...otherwise, many of his patients will die unnecessarily.
 
Last edited:
Dr kpk claimed it difficult to make cost projection due to medical advancement. But isn't the current loss ratio base on projection rather than a Random number? I might not be an expert in this field but no business exist without making projection of cost and profit. Health insurance is no exception. Ultimately gg was questioning if the current loss ratio of 63% way too conservative if similar insurance scheme in US don't have an issue with higher ratio.
 
Is medical insurance a "term" isnurance? ie what is collected this year will be used to pay out whatever claims and the balance is profit in the pocket of the insurance company. If you want cover next year, you pay again for next year and the cycle goes on. The profit this year will never be used to pay the claims for future year. So why is the justifications for charging so much now? Future medical cost goes up, then charge in future.
 
Dr kpk claimed it difficult to make cost projection due to medical advancement. But isn't the current loss ratio base on projection rather than a Random number? I might not be an expert in this field but no business exist without making projection of cost and profit. Health insurance is no exception. Ultimately gg was questioning if the current loss ratio of 63% way too conservative if similar insurance scheme in US don't have an issue with higher ratio.

The clown masquerading as a doctor should know that everything that is projected are based on certain known factors. Nothing is cast in stone.
Ask him to ask VB about the costs projection for the YOG.
 
Back
Top