The recently released report and recommendation on healthcare is readily welcomed because it is indeed an improvement from the past approach not by a milestone but an improvement nevertheless. An improvement grudgingly given or else the the ballot box will do the talking. In essence a gun held to the head of the Government.
Secondly, the policy of obfuscation continues. Instead of using the countries noted for providing the best possible universal healthcare to allow an apple to apple comparison, they selectively picked the Swiss Model. At best the approach is ineffective and at worst deceitful and dishonest. A first year University student who presents a paper with this kind of comparative analysis will immediately fail. Why not pick Malaysia just for comparison on how much a 65 yr uncle has to fork for a heartache in total cost.
Thirdly using an American expatriate who draws his remuneration indirectly from this government to provide an informed view of Obamacare is no different to asking a captive how he values his master in front of his master. Surely this is deceitful and dishonest conduct. The CPF did a similar study some years ago using the US Social Security programme and they picked the worst example in the 1st world.
Fourthly the comments peppered all around the report from feedback received in focus groups made of ordinary citizens and in wider stakeholder engagement were obvious or motherhood statements. More is of course better. Bear in mind the same and identical approach in receiving feedback and to prove that stakeholder engagement had taken place was done for the Population White Paper and it blew in their face spectacularly in their face and caught the establishment by complete surprise. So how did the mechanism fail so badly. Who were the idiots they engaged - PAP members and friends of the establishment. I recall NMP Dr Pauline Straughan, a lecturer in Sociology who endorsed the paper in the consultative stage hid under the desk when it exploded. And she is supposed to be qualified in this field.
Fifthly continuous and repeated mention of govt subsidies in its various forms never actually addresses why the actual total cost is so high. This is despite employing 3rd world nurses, 3rd world doctors and not actually operating in a 1st world cost environment. Is this another cost of HDB flat actual value that will never be released, explained or has no foundation to reality. So the starting point is flawed for any further proper assessment to be carried out.
Sixthly who the hell are the members of the committee for such an important body of to be carried out. I went thru their profile and the word underwhelming would be an understatement. They even have a property agent. Might as well include a used car salesman to complete the picture.
PAP, you need to stop this deceitful habit of cherry picking arguments and examples to suit your needs. Open that proverbial kimono and lay out all the facts. If the country decides that we have to raise taxes to look after needy and the incapable in our society, so be it. Please don't come to the table without first breaking down the cost components as the starting point and be ready to be transparent.
Secondly, the policy of obfuscation continues. Instead of using the countries noted for providing the best possible universal healthcare to allow an apple to apple comparison, they selectively picked the Swiss Model. At best the approach is ineffective and at worst deceitful and dishonest. A first year University student who presents a paper with this kind of comparative analysis will immediately fail. Why not pick Malaysia just for comparison on how much a 65 yr uncle has to fork for a heartache in total cost.
Thirdly using an American expatriate who draws his remuneration indirectly from this government to provide an informed view of Obamacare is no different to asking a captive how he values his master in front of his master. Surely this is deceitful and dishonest conduct. The CPF did a similar study some years ago using the US Social Security programme and they picked the worst example in the 1st world.
Fourthly the comments peppered all around the report from feedback received in focus groups made of ordinary citizens and in wider stakeholder engagement were obvious or motherhood statements. More is of course better. Bear in mind the same and identical approach in receiving feedback and to prove that stakeholder engagement had taken place was done for the Population White Paper and it blew in their face spectacularly in their face and caught the establishment by complete surprise. So how did the mechanism fail so badly. Who were the idiots they engaged - PAP members and friends of the establishment. I recall NMP Dr Pauline Straughan, a lecturer in Sociology who endorsed the paper in the consultative stage hid under the desk when it exploded. And she is supposed to be qualified in this field.
Fifthly continuous and repeated mention of govt subsidies in its various forms never actually addresses why the actual total cost is so high. This is despite employing 3rd world nurses, 3rd world doctors and not actually operating in a 1st world cost environment. Is this another cost of HDB flat actual value that will never be released, explained or has no foundation to reality. So the starting point is flawed for any further proper assessment to be carried out.
Sixthly who the hell are the members of the committee for such an important body of to be carried out. I went thru their profile and the word underwhelming would be an understatement. They even have a property agent. Might as well include a used car salesman to complete the picture.
PAP, you need to stop this deceitful habit of cherry picking arguments and examples to suit your needs. Open that proverbial kimono and lay out all the facts. If the country decides that we have to raise taxes to look after needy and the incapable in our society, so be it. Please don't come to the table without first breaking down the cost components as the starting point and be ready to be transparent.
