The Natcon or OSC had run for one full year and 47,000 Singaporeans have
been invited to talk to the govt. This is the clearest sign that the
govt sees a need to engage the people, to listen to the people, to talk
to the people. It also shows that the views of the people are important.
The govt is encouraging the people to speak up, share their views and
in the making of a Singapore that they want.
No one can doubt the sincerity of the govt for stepping out of their
ivory tower to be up close with the people. One group of people that is
glaringly missing in this equation is the critics in cyberspace. Somehow
the govt does not seem to know that they exist and have a lot of things
to say and want to contribute to the making of the future Singapore.
Maybe if they shout louder or put up their hands they will be noticed.
Stand up to be counted. The govt is talking about an all inclusive
society and would have no intention of leaving them out. It must be a
case of being in the fringes and difficult to know they are there. But
no worry, soon the invitation will come.
The govt is in all earnest trying to get as much feedback and involved
as many people in the business of the country. Wait, just wait, be
patient. All the right people will be invited to share in the making of
the country. Have faith.
8/27/2013
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?
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?
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?
8/26/2013
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)