Is Medishield Insurance a profit making scheme?

CPF account owners have the privilege to participate in two optional medical insurance schemes, Medishield Basic and Enhanced. Presumably because these are a national health care initiative by the govt, the terms and benefits must be better than what the market can provide, or at least not worse off. I am not going to spend time delving into how much better or how much worse off they are and feel comfortable that they must be reasonable to the policyholders.
 
From data available in the media, it was reported that between 2001 and 2010, MediShield premiums collected were over $2 billion and the paid out was less than $1.3 billion, giving a net gain of $850 million.(I thought it should be $700m which is still a big sum) This is a pretty healthy return for a business. If the Medishield schemes are meant to be a profit making enterprise, the shareholders must be very pleased with the result and profit.
 
My question is whether the schemes are meant to be such, or be a self funding public service? If it is for profit making, who should benefit from the surplus? And I can understand why there is a new scheme like Medishield Life in the making. This new comprehensive all encompassing scheme could be even more profitable by the sheer numbers of policyholders as a compulsory scheme. Those with existing health conditions are unlikely to get away without paying an extra hefty loading on the premiums. A profit making business must take into the risk taken. And the oldies, in their 70s, 80s and 90s and above, I am salivating at the sum they are likely to pay in premiums. There is no free lunch, and higher risk means higher premium. The insurers must be beaming at the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow surely.
 
What if the Medishield schemes are not meant to be profit making? If that is the case, should not the profits, like the $850m, be ploughed back to the policyholders to lower the premiums? A non profit making scheme should not be distributing the profits away right? I don’t think any policyholder of the Medishield schemes has seen his premium lowered or subsidized due to the surplus of $850m yet. Where has this $850m gone to? Should not any surplus be returned to the policyholders in some ways? This will prevent anyone from thinking of raising premiums all the time to generate more profits for dunno who.
 
And if the Medishield Life is going to be made compulsory, it has more reasons to be a self funding scheme to benefit the policyholders and making profits should not be a consideration at all. Of course it should also not be loss making as well.
 
So, where are we now? Are the current Medishield schemes meant to generate profit or to pay the medical expenses of the policyholders? The main mission of such medical insurance schemes must be clear and up front, and must benefit the policyholders. It is a ‘compulsory’national insurance scheme with no one allows to opt out. Thus it must not be profit making in nature. If not, woe beholds the policyholders as they will end up at the mercy of the scheme, feeding the bottom line and having to pay out generous bonuses to dunno who.
 
Anyone knows what is going on?

Current COE system is the best

LTA has rounded up its 3 month public consultation exercise on how to tweak the current COE system to benefit the car owners and hopefully lowering the COE premiums. From the feedback as reported in the Today paper, it seems that the current system is still the best.
 
One suggestion by the public is the pay-as-you-bid system. This is shot down as it would ‘not necessarily lead to lower COE premiums’, according to NTU don Ng Yew Kwang. This must be the most convincing reason to dismiss the pay-as-you-bid system. I can’t think of any better reason than this.
 
Asst Professor Walter Theseira, also from NTU, said that if the price did come down due to the pay-as-you-bid system, good that it is possible to come down, she was worried that it would be the same people paying for lower prices. Is this a good reason why pay-as-you-bid system is not good? What is wrong with the same group of genuine buyers paying for lower premiums? Isn’t the objective is to lower COE premiums? Does it matter who were the buyers as long as they are legitimate?
 
Another suggestion of tying COE to OMV was met with disapproval by the MD of Volkswagen, Steffen Schwarz. In his view, Singaporeans want the latest technology and safety features and pegging to OMV is not necessary the way to go.
 
Though some car buyers at the feedback session by LTA felt the pay-as-you-bid system could work, it was reported that the academics and industry experts felt that ‘the current COE bidding mechanism, where all successful bidders pay the lowest, market clearing price, results in the most efficient outcome.’
 
I can only say this is the biggest bull shit. But what can I say when the experts said it is the best. So, would LTA listen to the experts or the genuine buyers who want to change the system to bring down COE premiums? There seems to be an agenda to retain the current system with some minor cosmetic changes. Another exercise in shadow chasing perhaps. How can they change the best COE bidding system that is serving so well and generating so good revenue?

USA – a country that must dabble in wars

After the disastrous WMD lie and the destruction of Iraq and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the world thought the Americans and the Brits would be remorseful and stay out of wars for a while. The Americans started to make some moves to pull out of the Middle East region and Iraq, only to reposition itself for a bigger war with its Asian pivot. Tension is rising high and the Americans openly talked about increasing military aids and selling more weapons to the regional countries.
 
That is not all. It is now preparing another big lie to engage in open warfare in Syria. Despite all the objections by the Russians, it is going in, again with another warmonger in Britain, and of course all the western powers. They are now making another case for another invasion of a Middle Eastern country, Syria. They are preparing the ground and the ‘intelligence’ like they did in Iraq. The Americans and their western allies are claiming that the Assad govt is guilty of chemical warfare against the insurgence. Everyone knows that a false flag incident can easily be staged without anyone able to prove who was the real culprit.
 
The Assad govt knows very well, just like Saddam Hussein, that all the Americans need is a false excuse to invade the country. In this case by pointing at the Assad govt for using chemical weapons, just like accusing Saddam Hussein for possession of WMD. All the Americans needed to do is to fire some chemical weapons into the insurgent camps and put the blame on Assad.
 
Syria is going to be invaded, by another American and British led Coalition of the Willing, and many more Syrians will perished as war collaterals, and the country destroyed and needing foreign aid to rebuild all over again.
 
Does anyone bother to ask why the Middle Eastern countries are in constant warfare, just like the Americans? Is there a correlation? Would the Asian and South East Asian countries learn from the tragedies of the Middle East and keep the American warmongers at a distance and not be dragged into another big war in their front yard?
 
The Americans need wars to keep their control over the susceptible and vulnerable countries. The Americans need wars to keep their war industries booming and profits in an exchange of lives for bullets. God have mercy on the Middle Eastern countries. God have mercy to enlighten the Asian and South East Asian countries not to be foolish to be fixed by the Americans and dragged into another wars incited by the Americans for the interests of the Americans while they pay dearly in lives and the destruction of their own countries and people.

How far can the govt go to make things compulsory and make the people pay?

We are familiar with CPF Life and the going to be introduced Medishield Life. Both are compulsory schemes and the people have no choice, cannot opt out but to pay at whatever rate the govt thinks appropriate and right to charge the people. Many have forgotten the Home Protection Insurance Scheme which is also a compulsory buy for any new HDB flat owners.
 
The people are accepting these compulsions quietly mainly for three reasons. One, the schemes are generally good for the people. Two, it is money taken from their savings in the CPF that they knew they may not be able to see them in their life time. So they did not feel the pain for paying. And thirdly, what can the people do without knowing their rights or the govt’s right to legalize such compulsory schemes and making the people paying for them.
 
The Medishield Life may come in to rub some people wrongly. Many would not be able to pay the premiums in the long term as it is like paying till one dies and with the premiums increasing with age at a time when many oldies no longer have any income or are economically active. So, could it happen that some may have to top up with cash from their own pockets or from family members when govt subsidies are not enough? Here we may inch closer to an area that is taboo, ie taking cash from the people directly for compulsory schemes.
 
Would this Medishield Life scheme, or later on new compulsory schemes, be introduced and expecting the people to pay by cash? If paying by CPF savings is legal, then there is no reason why paying by cash cannot be legal for govt introduced compulsory schemes of any kind that are claimed to be good for the people.
 
How far can the govt go with this line of thinking and with more compulsory schemes and expecting the people to pay in cash when there is nothing much left in the CPF? This possibility cannot be ignored and is not far fetched. The people must question how far can the govt go in such compulsory schemes. The govt cannot be given a free hand to keep scheming more compulsory schemes and making the people pay for them through their savings, and eventually may be taking direct cash.
 
The govt is pro active, think ahead, plan ahead. The people too must be pro active, think ahead and plan ahead and be prepared to pre empt policies that are not to their interests and benefits, to nip future govt policies in the bud.

Shadow chasing as an art

The Medishield Life is the latest govt effort to solving the high unaffordability problem of health care in Singapore. Admission to a govt general hospital has attracted the same fear as in the days of yore. Our parents and grandparents generations feared hospital admission due to ignorance and the perception of death as most illnesses were left too late and became too serious that admission was akin to dying. Today the fear of admission is more practical, cannot afford to pay and better to die. So here comes the white knight waving Medishield Life in his hand as the saviour of the troubled and very sick.

The runaway property prices have sent shivers down many youngsters and their parents for not being able to afford the affordably priced public housing. The truth that the affordable public housing was unaffordable finally sank in without any admission of guilt or ownership for creating this financial and social fiasco. Alright, never mind, no need to go witch hunting as the problem is being addressed by the most simple solution, to build more flats to meet the high demand. In some way the problem is being tackled with some success but with the prices remaining high and still going higher. Yes, the high price is not really a problem and is allowed to go higher albeit at a slower pace.

The high cost of living coupled with high inflation have made the money so much smaller, or a bigger income but smaller buying power. The silly and ignorant are still very happy that their income is growing and oblivious to their purchasing power. The most badly affected is the average Sinkie with a stagnant real income. The solutions offered so far are more subsidies and more subsidies.

The above three major bugbears of the citizenry have a common syndrome. The high cost of medical care will continue to go higher. The high cost of housing will continue to go higher. The high cost of living will continue to rise. None of the solutions to these problems touches on the need to stop the prices and high cost of living from going higher. Somehow this is not seen as a problem or the cause of all the problems. The prices and high cost of living must naturally go up. Or is it that they cannot be brought down? Or is it that it is good to let them go higher and higher.

I am still very curious why aren’t anyone tasked to solve these problems wants to bring down the runaway prices and cost of living/inflation? In a way this is similar to the population growth. Population growth is a necessity, an unstoppable reality, a must have. Without population growth the whole economy will go on a tailspin and the economy will fumble. So population growth must continue to grow. It is unstoppable, the fourth unstoppable growth that must not be fiddled with or be messed around.

A simpler way to look at this problem solving approach is the high prices of goods due to demand and supply. Both demand and supply affect the price and the price can be managed by fiddling with demand and or supply at the same time. But the mindset is just to tackle from only one side of the equation. How effective can this be or will it be? Or how real is the solution if one is closed to looking at the other part of the problem?