2/12/2008
Long Life Insurance
Same assumptions and reasoning. People will live longer, no money, go to meet the people session to ask for help. How many of these people really need help at the end of the day?
Why don't we have another set of assumptions. Some people will live longer. They will make provisions for themselves personally or through their families. They don't need govt's charity. Is this group more than those in the former group?
Assuming that 70% live till 65. So 70% will may need the Long Life Insurance. Assuming 50% of those reaching 65 will live till 85. So half of the 70% or 35% may need the insurance. Take this at the half way mark this will give 17.5% who would need the insurance.
The assuming that half of this 17.5% have been responsible and have savings, then only 8.75% will need the insurance.
And assuming that half of this have families to take care of them, the final figure will be 4.375% that really need the insurance.
For the sake of 4.375% who for some reasons cannot look after themselves in old age, 100% of the population will have to be forced to buy Long Life Insurance. Actually this figure is a bit inflated as many who cannot afford to live that long would have die naturally. Those who can afford to live to the ripe old age would have some means to do so.
What the Govt can do is to issue a Certificate of Proof of voluntary rejection of the Long Life Insurance and allow people to opt out of the scheme. And at the end of the day, if these people come for handouts, just give them the $290 pm and nothing more. The COP will make them ineligible for more govt handouts.
I think this will be fair. The people will take responsibility for their own actions and life. And the govt would not be blamed if they mess up their lives. And given the benevolent Long Life Insurance Scheme in place, not many will be left in the lurch.
Is it really so hard to let people have the option to opt out? Why so adamant about making it compulsory? Let people be responsible for their own actions. Trust the people. If the govt cannot trust the people, why should the people trust the govt?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The fundamental issue of all these wayang and BS is the money in the bank. As Jerry McQuire would have asked, show me the MONEY!
As long as people fall for the trick that "the govt will look after me by conjuring up some wild-ass scheme" there will be failures on a massive scale.
All errors in life are caused by errors in thinking—in judgement and evaluation.
i still think the authorities shud do equal contibution in terms of payouts for the cpflife as they have done for charities, schools etc. afterall the people are impt assets of the country and shud be taken care of in their twilight years. at least this will mitigate the sacrifices which everyone make in helping the country accumulate such vast monetary assets. such recognition would go along way to promote national pride and unity.
in our materialistic, modern, calculative and selfish society, we treasure different set of value. now it is all about money, is it worth it monetarily, is money well spent etc.
the older set of values like loyalty, citizenship, pride of country, dying for the country, sacrifices etc are now considered nice idealism. cannot be eaten.
that's why my heart goes out fondly to the chinese leaders who went out of their way to help clear snow and ate reunion dinners with the farmers, workers..
they are the real servants.. not to money or foreigners, but to their own people. that's why nationalistic pride is so high with the thais, koreans, chinese etc.. they will spit or kick you if you so belittle their people..
we seems to have alot here, yet we dun seems to be any happier, how come? i guess nobody is wiser abt these reasons than our own redbean.
> the older set of values like loyalty, citizenship, pride of country, dying for the country, sacrifices etc are now considered nice idealism. <
No one is stopping you from practicing these "stirling" virtues. C'mon, set a good example to humanity instaed of just waggling the jaw bones.
> we seems to have alot here, yet we dun seems to be any happier, how come? <
Speak for yourself, mofo, I'm happy - at least most of the time.
i also like to practise a little hyprocrisy. let the unthinking masses embrace the virtues and exploit them to the most. tell them such virtues are excellent, then grab whatever they have.
and let them sing 'there goes my every thing...'
matilah is living in the ethereal plane, responsible to no one and owing no one anything. having no country to hold allegiance to. as fluid as water and be everywhere anytime. his happiness or contentment is always self.
conservative people still have a little of self, a little of family, a little of country still left in them. and what is important to these people is not the same as what is important to matilah. but such people are often seen as stupid as their values are no longer important in a materialistic and selfish world. they will often have to face brunt of the brutal truth.
so is what is important to people who live to get rich as the only reason for existence. these are the materially very successful people and quietly they will joke about the stupid masses out there. they will avoid telling the brutal truth if they can and keep on exploitating their advantages to the fullest.
Redbean, you have to understand that Singapore is unique in that the country is very much identified with the ruling party by extension one man because of the overwhelming influence that man and his party has had on the country. In the States for instance, it is very much possible (and may I add very common) to hate GWB yet still love USA the country. This is not possible in Singapore. Love for Singapore equates to love for that man and his party. You can deny however much you want but the you know deep in your heart that is the case. That is why many Singaporeans, especially the younger ones who loathe either the party or that man or even both do not, or cannot subscribe to your ideals of loyalty, citizenship and pride of country.
some people will separate policies from the person. you may agree or disagree with the policies. and you can like or dislike the man.
some will group the two together. disagree with the policies means dislike or hate the man.
we are just discussing issues and it is better to separate policies and issues from personalities.
all politicians will have political friends and political enemies. no one is loved by all or hated by all.
> matilah is living in the ethereal plane, responsible to no one and owing no one anything. having no country to hold allegiance to. as fluid as water and be everywhere anytime. his happiness or contentment is always self. <
All of a sudden you become an "expert" on me?
You presumptuous arse!
> conservative people still have a little of self, a little of family, a little of country still left in them. and what is important to these people is not the same as what is important to matilah. but such people are often seen as stupid as their values are no longer important in a materialistic and selfish world. they will often have to face brunt of the brutal truth. <
There you go with your complete misunderstanding. Firstly, you forget - "countries" in the TRUEST SENSE rarely exist these days. They've all been taken over by the institution called The State.
S'poreans haven't had a "country" for years now.
And you've obviously painted a wrong picture of me: I know of very few people MORE "conservative" than I. The State has usurped true, conservative "family values".
The State has usurped thrift from hard work and favoured credit and usury. The State has interfered with almost everything from morality to personal finance shitting over "conservative" institutions like spirituality and religion, self-governed community etc.
I can go on and on, and I will in my posts.
But I do not have control on what you form in your own mind. It is your RIGHT to be WRONG about me and what I stand for.
matilah,
i never ever claim to be right on anything. but just my view. you understand?
what state you talking about? it is not even the govt. it is a few people who are in a position of power that is telling the people what to do, what is right, what is good, what is best for them. that is what is happening to all the countries.
It is not a qn of why the people should trust the gahmen. The bloody people are the ones who voted the govt in. So, trust is implicit there, or at the very least they trust the gahmen more than they trust loonies the likes of Chee, Chiam and Jeya.
"what state you talking about? it is not even the govt. it is a few people who are in a position of power that is telling the people what to do, what is right, what is good, what is best for them"
The few people who are in a position of power would not be there if the imbecillic people did not put them there. Once they are there, by the miracle of this concept called democracy, they earned the right to tell the people that put them there what food they should eat, where they can or cannot go, who tehy can or canot fuck. You can call them state, government, parliament, country whatever. It does not alter the fact that they are there because the morons who are complaining about being told what to do by these people put them there in the first place. You would struggle to find anyone more intellectually challenged than such 'sheple'.
redbean, lest you forget: The People Get The Government They Deserve.
Even if they (god forbid) vote in Chee or Jeya, they get what they deserve.
If the sheeple refuse to cooperate with each other voluntarily and form groups opposing each other, by political process, then they, the people will be in perpetual war with each other.
Those who can't govern themselves will be governed. Fuck em. They deserve it.
i can't dispute this truth. but all things will come to an end. and the end is coming, quite evident.
Post a Comment