Medisave money can use a bit only

My father in law has stones in his kidney and he was admitted into a private hospital. The so called specialist recommended him to go for a minor operation the next day. As he was in pain, he decided to go ahead without asking about the cost of the operation. End up his stayed in the hospital for 4 days and 3 night. His hospital bill was $11K. Only can use $1K from his medisave to pay. The rest has to be paid by cash. Is medisave really that good?? The above was posted in Sammyboy. If it is true, then what is our money in the Medisave for? Huh, our money or not our money? Isn't the Medisave meant to pay for our hospitalisation? Or is it to be rationed for 20 hospitalisation stays in the future? Jesus!

Compulsory annuities will be introduced

Ong Hui Guan, Secretariat, National Longetivity Insurance Committee wrote a reply to Vincent Chia and assured the public that they will carefully considered all angles after consulting the actuarial experts. Did he also said, 'thank you for your comment, the compulsory annuities will be introduced no matter what?' Or they may or may not introduce annuities if the study is not favourable? But it seems that the study is about how best to introduce and not about the relevance of the whole concept. The path to be travelled is quite clear.

The residents were furious

Raymond Lim and his MPs hold court to answer queries from the residents. I saw some snippets on TV news. And were the residents furious? The short clip only showed some residents asking questions on the ineffectiveness of ERP despite having to pay more and the ire over the comment that the funeral hub at Sin Ming Lane were be as attractive as Disneyland. The Minister and his MPs replied. By their expression you could see how uncomfortable they were. Neither were the standard replies well received. Would the Minister and MPs think that they have replied and case closed?

Irreversible demographic change

The speed at which the population is changing and its effects on Singaporeans is an area of great concern. Does the govt need to consult the people, getting a referendum for such a major change that can affect their lives adversely? Or as Josephine Teo said, when the govt has carefully considered the problem and think that it is good for the people, it has all the right to go ahead with it? This demographic change is going to affect those living now and the future generation for good or for the worst. It is no joking matter.

Before the nails are hammered in

There is a reprieve of 6 months for the appointed committee to review the annuity scheme. From all the official statements made so far, you can expect nothing much to be changed. A fresh sum of money will be locked away. That is as good as what we have been told. And that seems to be the real objective. The rest like providing for an income when most would probably die is simply crab. And all the fuss can be solved, I repeat again, by a plate of char kway teow. And that is what it will cost the people or govt. There is no need to lock away more money. We are reaching a point of hysteria and insanity by harping on how much the people need when they already have enough to keep themselves going. Only a very small group will need help and the help is just a plate of char kway teow. Even this plate of char kway teow can be spared if the $30k in the Medisave can be redesigned for the aged, ie above 85. There is no need to build a mountain out of a mole hill.