Has the world forgotten about the lie that led to the invasion of Iraq
on a fabricated WMD charge? Has the world forgotten the murder of about
30 South Korean navy soldiers in the sinking of the Choenan Incident?
The two Koreans could have gone to war and destroying themselves and
their country. Fortunately they have better sense not to fall into the
trap. Can’t say that of the Middle Eastern countries that are helplessly
being manipulated by the Americans and the western powers to keep
killing each other. Many innocents have died due to false flag incidents
created by you know who.
And now another false flag incident is being fabricated to justify the
bombing of Syria by the Americans and western powers. The Americans have
already pointed the guilty finger at Assad. In an AGENCIES report,
‘Washington said it already held Mr Assad responsible for “moral
obscenity” and President Obama would hold him to account for it.’
It is so easy to fire chemical weapons on your own troops or on your own
side and blame the enemy. And given the intent and who would benefit if
Assad is accused of using chemical weapons, the answer is obvious and
it is easy to conclude who would have all the reasons to use chemical
weapons to blame Assad and to justify an invasion.
Assad, like Saddam Hussein, is not a fool and would not give the
Americans an excuse to attack. So the likelihood of the Americans
creating this incident to invade Syria is very high. Would the
Americans be held responsible for this moral obscenity and the killing
of more Syrians and the destruction of Syria? Would Obama be charged for
crimes against humanity just like George Bush? No, no one will bring
charges against them. They are the empire that is above the law.
Syria will be in turmoil and be destroyed. So would be the lives of the
innocent civilians. How much more evil can the Americans and the West
be?
8/28/2013
Turning insurance upside down
The Medishield Life is a great scheme for the good of the people
theoretically. It is going to bring affordable healthcare to everyone,
especially those who really really need it, those who are already very
sick with existing conditions. How much more can one hope for when no
insurer would want to touch them with a ten foot pole? Now everyone is
waiting for the details to see how real this can be and how many will be
covered and how much will it cost.
Personally I have doubt if there can be a comprehensive insurance cover for everything and every one. It cannot be for many simple reasons. When the principles of insurance are turned upside down, when the uninsurable will be insured, when the highest risk will be made to pay less and the least risk will have to pay more just do not make sense.
In the matter of life and health, the young are the less risky group and normally will pay the lowest premiums for insurance. The older one gets, the nearer one gets to the other end when death and serious illnesses are as sure as the sun will rise. Naturally the premiums to be paid by the oldies will be many times higher than the young. And covering people above 70 and into the century is inconceivable and makes bad business sense and bad insurance. Further, who needs insurance at those ages and who can afford the premiums?
The first major flaw, to cover the young and make them pay for the oldies is incomprehensible. And who will be made to pay for the young who have no income?
The second big flaw, covering the high risk oldies, and making them pay less. I am wondering just how low would they be made to pay when the risk is so high. And it is unimaginable to get oldies paying insurance premium throughout their lives into the 70s and beyond. Many of them will be economically inactive, with no income and probably exhausting or depleting whatever little savings they have. Where got money to pay? Then who will pay for them, the govt or their children?
Now, the paymaster must naturally be the parents of the young and the children of the olds. Yes the economically active that will have to pay for their own insurance and the insurance premiums of their children and parents. God have mercy for this piece of sandwich.
Designing insurance schemes that violate the principles of insurance policy will not work as it will not be workable or sustainable. Either the premium will be so high or the insurers will all go broke. What is the likely outcome once reality sets in, when the numbers do not make sense, is that there will be a watered down version that may be a big let down.
Personally I have doubt if there can be a comprehensive insurance cover for everything and every one. It cannot be for many simple reasons. When the principles of insurance are turned upside down, when the uninsurable will be insured, when the highest risk will be made to pay less and the least risk will have to pay more just do not make sense.
In the matter of life and health, the young are the less risky group and normally will pay the lowest premiums for insurance. The older one gets, the nearer one gets to the other end when death and serious illnesses are as sure as the sun will rise. Naturally the premiums to be paid by the oldies will be many times higher than the young. And covering people above 70 and into the century is inconceivable and makes bad business sense and bad insurance. Further, who needs insurance at those ages and who can afford the premiums?
The first major flaw, to cover the young and make them pay for the oldies is incomprehensible. And who will be made to pay for the young who have no income?
The second big flaw, covering the high risk oldies, and making them pay less. I am wondering just how low would they be made to pay when the risk is so high. And it is unimaginable to get oldies paying insurance premium throughout their lives into the 70s and beyond. Many of them will be economically inactive, with no income and probably exhausting or depleting whatever little savings they have. Where got money to pay? Then who will pay for them, the govt or their children?
Now, the paymaster must naturally be the parents of the young and the children of the olds. Yes the economically active that will have to pay for their own insurance and the insurance premiums of their children and parents. God have mercy for this piece of sandwich.
Designing insurance schemes that violate the principles of insurance policy will not work as it will not be workable or sustainable. Either the premium will be so high or the insurers will all go broke. What is the likely outcome once reality sets in, when the numbers do not make sense, is that there will be a watered down version that may be a big let down.
The earnest of govt to want to talk to the people
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)