lowering medical cost or how to pay

BoonWan is tackling the 'how to pay expensive medical bills again.' I sense that the issue is not how to reduce medical cost, but how to pay the ever increasing cost, through group insurance. I think the root to this problem is high medical cost. And this must be tackled first. Medicare must be rightly divided into those who can afford and don't mind paying and those who cannot afford and needed help. That is why we have a govt and not an anarchic society where there is no govt and if one cannot afford it, just too bad. Another area is for the govt to provide choice for the people to decide what they want to consume and pay for. The govt shall not pre decide who should consume what and pay what. The third area is to educate people to prepare to die. Anyone who passes 65 or 70, must be prepared to die, gracefully, with minimum discomfort, through ageing. The medical service must not play the role of extending life at all cost, thus raising medical cost to an astronomical height. For those who can afford it, they can pay for whatever to extend their life for as long as they want. For many who cannot afford it, and without the means, extension of life is an extension of suffering, a burden to themselves, family and society. The expensive medical procedures and medicine are not doing them any good but increasing their misery. And hopefully, with a review of the objectives of medicare and its role in society, and with a proper insurance scheme tailored to different individual needs, with choices and not a straight jacket formula, no one need to have all their money locked up in medisave and CPF when these can be used to provide them with a better quality of life. Not everyone needs the heavy insurance, not everyone wants to extend their life mindlessly. And many will have other means to pay for their medical needs, including family support. The medisave and medical insurance must allow for flexibility and choice. Otherwise, there is no need for all the supertalents if a simple straight jacket solution is all that the ministry can come out with.

taxing the poor efficiently

Income tax dept should rethink unequal tax cut policy to narrow divide between rich and poor I am an income tax payer. Income tax dept should rethink unequal tax cut policy to narrow divide between rich and poor. However, I am pleasantly surprised to discover that my income tax burden is reduced for assessment year 2006. I gather this information from the IRAS website: Singaporean, individual, salaried earner, top income tax contributors will pay 1% less tax while medium income earner will pay 0.5% less tax compared to last year. But low income earners get no benefit. I would like the IRAS to reconsider unequal income tax reduction. I propose that the system of income tax in 2003 be reinstated with reduction in Goods and Services Tax by at least 3 percentage points. My arguments are simple. Firstly, our system taxes us in an inverted pyramid form, ie. the more I earn, the heavier my tax burden. I find this sensible, reasonable and logical. Secondly, GST is non-discriminatory and it effectively taxes our fellow lower income Singaporeans. In my opinion, this has contributed to the rich and poor divide. Not too low income earners like me should not complain about paying taxes as it is our duty as Singaporeans to contribute and move together forward as a nation. No man gets left behind in my Singapore. Ng Swee Kai The writer's article was published in the Sunday Times forum page. I fully agree with his suggestion. The GST is unjust to the poor through its reasoning that everyone must pay tax, rich or poor. Only rich people will support such a taxation policy where the poor, including the very poor, have to pay tax. Thus the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer.

can the hatchet be buried?

Lets bury the hatchet and get on with life. The election is over, the victor has been announced. There is no need for the viciousness to continue beyond the 9 days. It was already bad to see people fighting like vipers just to contest for power and wealth. It is time to let go and offer some graciousness. There will never be a Mother Teresa in politics. But there are gentlemen who will arrive on the political scene now and then. We lament that not many good men and women are willing to come forward to serve the nation. Is that true? There are many not so good men, there are evil men, but there are also very good men. Why is it that only the second best are offered to the people as leaders of the nation? Or why would good decent men who would willingly step forward to do their little parts for the people stay away? The last general election is perhaps the sanest of all elections we have had. There was almost a complete absence of personal attacks on any poltiicians. No dirty linens aired. Not until the Gomez incident. Even then, the opposition too were behaving like angels. They tackled issues, some controversial, but nothing personal. No good and decent man would want to get involved in gutter politics. No one would want to be threatened or be sued for wanting to serve people, society and nation. Try to imagine the fear that go through Gomez's mind all those days, putting aside the issue of guilt? And when it was over, it was all a storm in a teacup not worthy even to appear in court. But the pressure of being under siege is unnerving and nightmarish at the very least. Would any good men or women want to place themselves in such a situation? And not for a crime, and could be just a presumed intent. Unless the viciousness mentality is removed, we will only have the second best to serve the country. Our politics will never dream of becoming first world. I am not even asking for forgiveness. For there is nothing to warrant forgiveness.

when religious laws take over the country

Housewive ‘I am not a prostitute’ Indonesian moral guardians pick up frightened lady on street with 28 others, including 63-year-old woman. Amy Chew. Reuters May 12, 2006 "PROSTITUTE!" shouted the jeering crowds as a frightened housewife was led out to a show trial enforcing a controversial morality by-law. The evening before, on Feb 27, Lilies Lindawati was detained by officials of Tangerang, 35km west of here, while waiting for a bus home after dark, an offence under the local authority’s anti-prostitution regulations. With Lilies in tow, the officers went on to round up 28 other women. A 63-year-old woman buying rambutan on the roadside was arrested, as were two young girls eating at a stall. They were bundled off to City Hall where they were held for a night and brought to trial the next morning. "There is lipstick and compact powder in your bag. That means you are a prostitute," said the judge, who spoke through a microphone at a makeshift court on the City Hall grounds. Crying, Lilies replied that it was common for women to carry lipstick and compact powder. "But he refused to accept my explanation," said Lilies as she sat on the floor of her one-bedroom house, which she shares with her husband and two children.... Lilies was fined 300,000 rupiah (S$54). She could not pay the fine and was sent to jail with nine other women who also could not afford the fine. This is what can happen what religion takes over in the running of a country and when religious freaks passed themselves around as the agents of god.

gomez, a storm in a teacup

So Gomez is guilty but let off with a stern warning. Perhaps this is the best settlement given the circumstances. From the govt's point it will save a lot of embarrassment and unfavourable publicity in the international arena should the defence put up a strong case and get him acquitted. There is always such possibility in a court of law. The findings and judgement is made by the court and not even the police or prosecutor. Domestically the people found the case repulsive and it will only erode whatever little goodwill that is left. To expend this credit will cost them dearly in the next election. From Gomez and the WP, it is a nightmare that is over. A storm in a teacup which they could do without, and could not afford the time and finance to go through a lengthy legal process. They just did not have the money to fight an expensive court case and I don't think they will have the money to sue anyone. They definitely cannot do a Durai. They are a small party with limited resources.