Medishield-life should not be a loophole for the rich to rob the poor.

[bic_cherry]

Medishield-life should not be a loophole for the rich to rob the poor.

Only fair that PAP gahmen compensate all BASIC medishield-life premiums by 60%; Integrated Medishield-life RIDERS are Antithetical to concept of Pre-funding.

The concept of any form of insurance is about insuring against the unpreventable and the catastrophic: i.e. the damage must NOT be self inflicted due to negligence like the lack of exercise resulting in a low muscle mass and accordingly a low basal metabolic rate resulting in high body fat % (meaning that all fat cells are already so saturated with fat that they cannot accommodate any more energy absorption in the form of glucose): resulting in insulin resistance and high blood glucose: aka T2 Diabetes Mellitus. The purpose of the insurance deductible and copayment are thus blunt/ minimal forms of controls upon the abuse of these restrictions/ liabilities that ALL members of the national healthcare insurance scheme must adhere to without exception (just like national service (NS) or obeying laws and rules such as returning one's library books before their due date arrives).

The concept of pre-funding for medishield-life insurance means that certain STRICT rules must be in place to prevent unlawful withdrawals from the common fund pool for unmeritorious claims: e.g. on medical treatments which would have been avoidable but for the irresponsible lifestyle choices of the claimant (e.g. smoking, high % body fat).

Insurance riders which bypass the already minimal check and balances of the insurance deductible and copayment (which safeguard the common fund pool) and should thus either be outlawed, or else the per-capita claim quantum submitted by the cohort using such riders should not be allowed to exceed the per-capita claims value for the cohort subscribing to solely medishield-life basic so that the cohort of shamelessly greedy rich people may not use their wealth/ 'insurance' accounting tricks to grab and additional 60% more claims compensation out of the common cookie jar (at the expense of the middle class/ poor): just because loopholes/ the misuse of insurance riders allows them to.

Just as NS is compulsory/ managed upon the values of equitability, Medishield-life should not turn out to be another loophole for the rich to rob the poor.
----------------------------------

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/new-riders-for-ip-plans-will-include-co-pay-feature 'New riders for IP plans will include co-pay feature' [ST, 08 March 2018]: "People with full riders have bills that are 60 per cent higher than those without riders." http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/new-riders-for-ip-plans-will-include-co-pay-feature
------------------------------------
Reply from MOH
27 Nov 2013, Straits Times
Role of pre-funding
WE THANK Mr David Boey ("Problems with pre-funding"; Nov 19), Ms Maria Loh Mun Foong ("Merits of pre-funding"; last Thursday) and Mr Tan Kin Lian ("Pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life"; Forum Online, Monday) for sharing their views on the concept of pre-funding for MediShield.
The letters from Mr Boey and Ms Loh may have created the wrong impression that the proposed pre-funding concept will require the younger generation to cross-subsidise the current elderly.
For MediShield, the pre-funded amount contributed by each cohort is set aside for the future use of their own respective cohorts, and not used to cross-subsidise the current elderly.
To address concerns over affordability of premiums among the current cohort of elderly Singaporeans, the Government has indicated its plans to provide help for the older generation of Singaporeans.
As noted by Mr Tan, health-care costs tend to be higher for the elderly. This, plus the effects of medical advancements and changing expectations, will put further upward pressure on future premiums as we age.
For this reason, it will be even more important to set aside some premiums in advance, or pre-funding, to address concerns of premium affordability during old age.
With pre-funding, members pay higher premiums during their working ages and, in return, can receive rebates to offset their own future premiums when they grow old.
With the ongoing review and enhancement of MediShield to MediShield Life, one of the key issues the MediShield Life Review Committee hopes to engage the public on is increasing the role of pre-funding. The committee welcomes all Singaporeans to provide their feedback or sign up for upcoming discussion sessions through www.medishieldlife.sg
Philip Sim
Deputy Director
Corporate Communications
Ministry of Health
https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/pressRoom/Media_Forums/2013/role-of-pre-funding-.html

 

[bic_cherry]

@ another forum:

if doctors and hospital dont defraud insurers... patients would be able to make huge claims

I assume that typo error caused the self contradiction in your 2nd sentence.

I think that your statement is INCORRECT in so far that the buffet syndrome may be alive and well in patients (the ball being in patient's court).

For patients whose integrated plans are generous enough to afford a private suite in mt e hospital costing almost $10 grand a night (and waive off all out of pocket costs (deductible and coinsurance cover by rider), wouldn't that result in their choice of choosing the $9838/night Royal Suite as opposed to a $276/night (4-bedder) one in the SAME hospital, meaning a much higher chance of them maxing out the basic medishield-life ward limit cover?
https://www.mountelizabeth.com.sg/cost-financing/room-rates

If a doctor, nurse/ therapist is called for consultation by a patient staying in the royal suite, wouldn't the implication be more than the usual attention and exceptional care to detail, if not for any other reason but the fact that if a patient could afford to pay $9838 for a night stay, then multiple second opinions, if not a lawyers complaint about any lapse in service/treatment standards would be no more than a phone call away.

To suggest that the cause of medical cost overspending is solely in the hospital / practitioners court is perhaps a leap of the imagination and a gross underestimation.

Just as the profit margin from 1st and business class travelers is higher in the airline industry, the same would certainly apply in the hospital operations one which would certainly also bring out all the additional bells and whistles like free meals for accompanying relatives and limousine chauffeur home etc. This is all fine and dandy for a full private healthcare insurance system, however, when the balance sheet reveals that the poor are actually subsidising the luxuries of the rich, then something really disgusting and obscene is going on here.

 

[bic_cherry]

From another forum:

Insurance is something that you must be thankful that others make claims and not you even though you are paying premiums also...... :laughing

The problem with the Singapore design of medishield-life is that with rich people using riders to siphon $$$ from the public insurance pool for all kinds of unnecessary / un-meritorious claims, the system would either have to eventually charge indiscriminately exorbitant premiums, placing stress especially upon the poor (which can result in cancers and diabetes from bad lifestyle choices the consequence of struggling to make ends meet/pay insurance premiums) or else reveal itself to be the ultimate con job that seeks bankruptcy protection such that even those who have managed to survive by struggling hard to live healthy and do honest work find themselves in a bankrupt nation/ state because the leaders have been so corrupt and irresponsible that they used the savings of individuals (prefunding 'insurance' schemes) to buy votes and subsidise the treatment costs of rich people that the system is now bankrupt.

In such a desolate system run under an obviously corrupt pretense (allowing rich people to bypass essential check and balances), then even those left standing would eventually wish that they were already dead.

When loopholes as big as a 60% claims excess revealing themselves in the early years of the inception of our compulsory national healthcare insurance plan, such high hopes for the future remain a pipe dream at best.

You shall be in for a great disappointment if u do not view the current rampant exploitation and abuse plaguing the system with sufficient apprehension and concern.