Healthcare is not cash cow
On 2 May 2018, I was at the police station to assist an ongoing case of “sexual harassment”.
On 30 May 2018, I was at the police station to assist an ongoing case of “intentional harassment”.
The police has yet to get back to me about both cases.
Q) Have I been publishing articles under a different name?
A) My name is Han Hui Hui and my other name is my Chinese name 韩慧慧.
Q) Have I been writing on a daily basis?
A) Is it me or is it the government having no accountability and no transparency on a daily basis?
The Singapore government is coming up with a new mandatory CareShield Life to replace ElderShield.
The government-run scheme will be compulsory, automatically getting everyone who is between the ages of 30 and 40 in 2020 to start paying premiums.
Premiums start at $206 a year for men and $253 a year for women at the age of 30.
This will go up by 2 per cent a year for the first five years, premiums will increase over the years.
Future increases will be announced later till the age of 67 and how much each will increase by will be decided by a council that will be appointed.
According to the parliamentary reply, “From 2002 to end-2015, about $2.6 billion have been collected in premiums and around $100 million have been paid out in claims.” for Eldershield alone.
Public healthcare in Singapore is the cash cow of the Singapore government.
The Singapore government doesn’t spend a single cent on public healthcare and earns profits by collecting more premiums than the actual payout.
This year, the Senior Minister of State for Health also announced that patients must bear a minimum 5 per cent co-payment for new Integrated Shield Plan riders affecting those who will pay for what is known as “full riders”, on top of Integrated Shield Plans.
Why can’t the government be transparent to us by showing us what is the actual amount of money collected in total under the various compulsory national insurance schemes in Singapore compared to the actual claims paid?
Is this another scheme to further earn profit from our healthcare system?
According to the government website:
The estimated total premiums paid for a male, from age 30 to 67 is $7,800.
The estimated total payout assuming 10 years, from 67 to 76, is $144,000.
However, given the time value of money…
$7,800 at 4 per cent interest for the 37 years, from age 30 to 67 is worth $23,400 at age 67.
$144,000 at 4 per cent interest for 10 years, from age 67 to 76 is worth $116,000 at age 67.
$116,000 divided by $23,400 is less than 5.
Is the Singapore government assuming that more than 20% of Singaporeans will be severely disabled from 67 years old onwards?
In addition, the ministry of manpower has just released a report on "wage practices" for 2017.
It states that:
1. More establishments raised their employee’s wages in 2017 (65%) compared to 2016 (58%).
Does it mean that 35% of establishment did not raise their wages?
2. The proportion of establishments that cut total wages is 12% in 2017.
The proportion of employees who received wage cuts is 10% in 2017.
Does it mean that 22% of employees did not receive a wage increase?
3. 62% of establishments with low-wage employees earning a monthly basic wage of up to $1,200
granted wage increases.
Does it mean that 38% of establishments did not increase the wages of employees earning $1,200 and below?
As for those who were provided with a wage increase, how much is it?
$10? $20? $50?
Why won't the government be transparent and tell us how much are employees earning?
Why don't they give us the breakdown for Singaporeans?
Did they purposely include permanent residents since PRs have jobs and will improve the statistics?
On 30 May 2018, I was at the police station to assist an ongoing case of “intentional harassment”.
The police has yet to get back to me about both cases.
Q) Have I been publishing articles under a different name?
A) My name is Han Hui Hui and my other name is my Chinese name 韩慧慧.
Q) Have I been writing on a daily basis?
A) Is it me or is it the government having no accountability and no transparency on a daily basis?
The Singapore government is coming up with a new mandatory CareShield Life to replace ElderShield.
The government-run scheme will be compulsory, automatically getting everyone who is between the ages of 30 and 40 in 2020 to start paying premiums.
Premiums start at $206 a year for men and $253 a year for women at the age of 30.
This will go up by 2 per cent a year for the first five years, premiums will increase over the years.
Future increases will be announced later till the age of 67 and how much each will increase by will be decided by a council that will be appointed.
According to the parliamentary reply, “From 2002 to end-2015, about $2.6 billion have been collected in premiums and around $100 million have been paid out in claims.” for Eldershield alone.
Public healthcare in Singapore is the cash cow of the Singapore government.
The Singapore government doesn’t spend a single cent on public healthcare and earns profits by collecting more premiums than the actual payout.
This year, the Senior Minister of State for Health also announced that patients must bear a minimum 5 per cent co-payment for new Integrated Shield Plan riders affecting those who will pay for what is known as “full riders”, on top of Integrated Shield Plans.
Why can’t the government be transparent to us by showing us what is the actual amount of money collected in total under the various compulsory national insurance schemes in Singapore compared to the actual claims paid?
Is this another scheme to further earn profit from our healthcare system?
According to the government website:
The estimated total premiums paid for a male, from age 30 to 67 is $7,800.
The estimated total payout assuming 10 years, from 67 to 76, is $144,000.
However, given the time value of money…
$7,800 at 4 per cent interest for the 37 years, from age 30 to 67 is worth $23,400 at age 67.
$144,000 at 4 per cent interest for 10 years, from age 67 to 76 is worth $116,000 at age 67.
$116,000 divided by $23,400 is less than 5.
Is the Singapore government assuming that more than 20% of Singaporeans will be severely disabled from 67 years old onwards?
In addition, the ministry of manpower has just released a report on "wage practices" for 2017.
It states that:
1. More establishments raised their employee’s wages in 2017 (65%) compared to 2016 (58%).
Does it mean that 35% of establishment did not raise their wages?
2. The proportion of establishments that cut total wages is 12% in 2017.
The proportion of employees who received wage cuts is 10% in 2017.
Does it mean that 22% of employees did not receive a wage increase?
3. 62% of establishments with low-wage employees earning a monthly basic wage of up to $1,200
granted wage increases.
Does it mean that 38% of establishments did not increase the wages of employees earning $1,200 and below?
As for those who were provided with a wage increase, how much is it?
$10? $20? $50?
Why won't the government be transparent and tell us how much are employees earning?
Why don't they give us the breakdown for Singaporeans?
Did they purposely include permanent residents since PRs have jobs and will improve the statistics?
