Medishield-life turns out to be a scam that robs poor people in Singapore? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14895409
Medishield-life turns out to be a scam that robs poor people in Singapore?
Image http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/new-riders-for-ip-plans-will-include-co-pay-feature
Sadly, I read in the papers that the rich who can afford the highest level medical insurance plans are probably the biggest/ worst exploiters of the compulsory national healthcare insurance scheme in Singapore. As it is reported in 'New riders for IP plans will include co-pay feature' [ST, 08 March 2018]: "People with full riders have bills that are 60 per cent higher than those without riders." http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/new-riders-for-ip-plans-will-include-co-pay-feature

As I understand, the 60% difference refers to the difference between already rich people: i.e. the rich (own just medishield-life integrated plans) vs the ultra rich (own insurance riders in ADDITION to the integrated plans). As compared to the poor (only have compulsory basic 'medishield-life'), the difference cannot be more stark since as the example highlighted by Mr Gilbert Goh (appended below or at https://www.facebook.com/goh.gilbert/posts/10157361126798975?pnref=story ) some poor Singaporeans skip medical treatments due to inability to afford transportation costs. Having more comfortable care at government and private hospitals may also mean that richer patients live longer and thus stand to benefit from the concept of 'pre-funding' since poor people finding it hard to physically transport themselves to medical care locations implicitly benefit less from the compulsory national healthcare insurance scheme since they will die earlier for reasons of transport costs difficulties and other obvious benefits ONLY available to private integrated medishield-life insurance coverage such as pre/post hospitalization care, cancer immunotherapy, prosthesis benefits, ability to port care benefits to other parts of the world (evacuation costs, overseas treatments) etc. 'Role of pre-funding' https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/pressRoom/Media_Forums/2013/role-of-pre-funding-.html

I thus will not be surprised that based upon the concept of 'pre-funding', the shortened life expectancy of poor people, the ability of the rich to afford higher quality/ comfort care / greater options, medishield-life has inadvertently (?or by design?) become a means by which the poor are now implicitly if not explicitly funding the healthcare/ treatment costs for rich people.

My suggestion to this obviously obtuse, inhumane, unjust and untenable system of exploiting the poor is to stop any one subscribing to any integrated shield plan or worse still, insurance plan riders (conferring further medical fees waivers) from receiving any subsidies usually accruable to the basic medishield-life portion of the insurance plan. To provide subsidies to anyone who can afford to subscribe to integrated shield plans is a travesty of justice akin to funding private taxi fares (which is an obvious luxury as compared to public transport (bus/ MTR fares)), to fund people subscribing to any integrated medishield-life plan with an additional rider would be like providing subsidies for people who want to own their own automobiles (just because they under declare their income tax or report a small dwelling place as their residential address): an obvious squander of government funds and worse: complicity in the robbery/ exploitation of the poor since as earlier described, any person who gets a deliberate/ unfair 60% (upwards) upperhand in the nett 'access' to common pool medishield-life funds obtained under the communist/ socialist concept of compulsory 'pre-funding' reveals the gross injustice implicit in the design of medishield-life that blindly subsidises holders of private healthcare insurance plans; which obviously will erode national cohesion and trust in government in the long run.

Instead of disbursing medishield-life subsidies liberally (indiscriminately) like one distracts children with cheap candies, a more targeted carrot-stick based upon health consciousness can keep overall cohort medicals claims costs low: e.g. maintaining a low % body fat (below 15% for males and below 25% for females), performing well in fitness tests (modeled after universally used military fitness test like IPPT, with swimming/ cycling alternatives), non-smoking status are all very good (anti-diabetes) options to consider for substantive 'earned' waivers from the costs of premiums for compulsory medishield-life which can be implemented on a national level, as well as the total banning of the use of riders, would make the basic medishield-life scheme a more trusted medical insurance scheme whereby the concept of healthcare insurance returns to the original philosophy of insuring calamities which are unpreventable by doing everything within control to avoid the avoidable (e.g. type 2 diabetes due to sedentary lifestyle, high% body fat causing diabetes etc). Rather than a sneaky way for the rich to siphon $$$ from the poor to fund their own irresponsible and lavish lifestyles in the ultimate tragedy of the commons and let Singapore go bankrupt due to the lawless, free for all, self-serving buffet syndrom mentality, the result of an extremely poorly planned and executed national healthcare insurance policy.
=========================

From:
https://www.facebook.com/goh.gilbert/posts/10157361126798975?pnref=story
Visited a 50-year-old man who skips his medical appointment twice because he could not gather enough transport money to visit the doctor. He is suspected to have initial stage of cancer of the pancreas and liver. He lost about 30 kg from his previous weight and looks jaundiced.
He also owes a few months of utilities, rental and town council charges but feels most worried about the rental debts as HDB has dropped by already to check on him. He is afraid of losing the home though I assured him that so far HDB has not go hard on rental defaultors unlike purchased flat owners.
Surprisingly, SSO has rejected his welfare application citing that he still has a son who is now working as an intern earning $1200/month. His Malaysian wife is currently back in Malaysia undergoing dialysis for her diabetic condition. Of course, the SSO wants him to get back to work but his ill health and frail body are not helping him much.
He is currently awaiting approval from Comcare side after visiting his MP.
I left Jefri after leaving him with a small amount of cash for his meals and assured him that we will assist in one way or another.
A regular donor has pledged $500 to offset the $600-over rental default and someone has already paid $100 into the SP bill. At least he will have a roof over his head as he nurses his health slowly back to normal.
Apologise that the video is abit soft and last five minutes.
Poor People's Campaign: a ground-up community initiative to improve the living condition of the poor among us.
=======================
Everyone must compulsorily conform to the concept of 'pre-funding', however, ultimately, it is the poor who paradoxically subsidise the rich since the rich (leveraging upon insurance 'riders') get to claim 60% more (even after proration is considered):
Reply from MOH
27 Nov 2013, Straits Times
Role of pre-funding
WE THANK Mr David Boey ("Problems with pre-funding"; Nov 19), Ms Maria Loh Mun Foong ("Merits of pre-funding"; last Thursday) and Mr Tan Kin Lian ("Pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life"; Forum Online, Monday) for sharing their views on the concept of pre-funding for MediShield.
The letters from Mr Boey and Ms Loh may have created the wrong impression that the proposed pre-funding concept will require the younger generation to cross-subsidise the current elderly.
For MediShield, the pre-funded amount contributed by each cohort is set aside for the future use of their own respective cohorts, and not used to cross-subsidise the current elderly.
To address concerns over affordability of premiums among the current cohort of elderly Singaporeans, the Government has indicated its plans to provide help for the older generation of Singaporeans.
As noted by Mr Tan, health-care costs tend to be higher for the elderly. This, plus the effects of medical advancements and changing expectations, will put further upward pressure on future premiums as we age.
For this reason, it will be even more important to set aside some premiums in advance, or pre-funding, to address concerns of premium affordability during old age.
With pre-funding, members pay higher premiums during their working ages and, in return, can receive rebates to offset their own future premiums when they grow old.
With the ongoing review and enhancement of MediShield to MediShield Life, one of the key issues the MediShield Life Review Committee hopes to engage the public on is increasing the role of pre-funding. The committee welcomes all Singaporeans to provide their feedback or sign up for upcoming discussion sessions through http://www.medishieldlife.sg
Philip Sim
Deputy Director
Corporate Communications
Ministry of Health
https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/pressRoom/Media_Forums/2013/role-of-pre-funding-.html
#14895446
Medishield-life should not be a loophole for the rich to rob the poor.

Only fair that PAP gahmen compensate all BASIC medishield-life premiums by 60%; Integrated Medishield-life RIDERS are Antithetical to concept of Pre-funding.

The concept of any form of insurance is about insuring against the unpreventable and the catastrophic: i.e. the damage must NOT be self inflicted due to negligence like the lack of exercise resulting in a low muscle mass and accordingly a low basal metabolic rate resulting in high body fat % (meaning that all fat cells are already so saturated with fat that they cannot accommodate any more energy absorption in the form of glucose): resulting in insulin resistance and high blood glucose: aka T2 Diabetes Mellitus. The purpose of the insurance deductible and copayment are thus blunt/ minimal forms of controls upon the abuse of these restrictions/ liabilities that ALL members of the national healthcare insurance scheme must adhere to without exception (just like national service (NS) or obeying laws and rules such as returning one's library books before their due date arrives).

The concept of pre-funding for medishield-life insurance means that certain STRICT rules must be in place to prevent unlawful withdrawals from the common fund pool for unmeritorious claims: e.g. on medical treatments which would have been avoidable but for the irresponsible lifestyle choices of the claimant (e.g. smoking, high % body fat).

Insurance riders which bypass the already minimal check and balances of the insurance deductible and copayment (which safeguard the common fund pool) and should thus either be outlawed, or else the per-capita claim quantum submitted by the cohort using such riders should not be allowed to exceed the per-capita claims value for the cohort subscribing to solely medishield-life basic so that the cohort of shamelessly greedy rich people may not use their wealth/ 'insurance' accounting tricks to grab and additional 60% more claims compensation out of the common cookie jar (at the expense of the middle class/ poor): just because loopholes/ the misuse of insurance riders allows them to.

Just as NS is compulsory/ managed upon the values of equitability, Medishield-life should not turn out to be another loophole for the rich to rob the poor.
----------------------------------
Image http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/new-riders-for-ip-plans-will-include-co-pay-feature 'New riders for IP plans will include co-pay feature' [ST, 08 March 2018]: "People with full riders have bills that are 60 per cent higher than those without riders." http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/new-riders-for-ip-plans-will-include-co-pay-feature
------------------------------------
Reply from MOH
27 Nov 2013, Straits Times
Role of pre-funding
WE THANK Mr David Boey ("Problems with pre-funding"; Nov 19), Ms Maria Loh Mun Foong ("Merits of pre-funding"; last Thursday) and Mr Tan Kin Lian ("Pre-funding not feasible for MediShield Life"; Forum Online, Monday) for sharing their views on the concept of pre-funding for MediShield.
The letters from Mr Boey and Ms Loh may have created the wrong impression that the proposed pre-funding concept will require the younger generation to cross-subsidise the current elderly.
For MediShield, the pre-funded amount contributed by each cohort is set aside for the future use of their own respective cohorts, and not used to cross-subsidise the current elderly.
To address concerns over affordability of premiums among the current cohort of elderly Singaporeans, the Government has indicated its plans to provide help for the older generation of Singaporeans.
As noted by Mr Tan, health-care costs tend to be higher for the elderly. This, plus the effects of medical advancements and changing expectations, will put further upward pressure on future premiums as we age.
For this reason, it will be even more important to set aside some premiums in advance, or pre-funding, to address concerns of premium affordability during old age.
With pre-funding, members pay higher premiums during their working ages and, in return, can receive rebates to offset their own future premiums when they grow old.
With the ongoing review and enhancement of MediShield to MediShield Life, one of the key issues the MediShield Life Review Committee hopes to engage the public on is increasing the role of pre-funding. The committee welcomes all Singaporeans to provide their feedback or sign up for upcoming discussion sessions through http://www.medishieldlife.sg
Philip Sim
Deputy Director
Corporate Communications
Ministry of Health
https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/pressRoom/Media_Forums/2013/role-of-pre-funding-.html
#14895559
@ another forum:
gravity_infinity(HWZ) wrote:if doctors and hospital dont defraud insurers... patients would be able to make huge claims

I assume that typo error caused the self contradiction in your 2nd sentence.

I think that your statement is INCORRECT in so far that the buffet syndrome may be alive and well in patients (the ball being in patient's court).

For patients whose integrated plans are generous enough to afford a private suite in mt e hospital costing almost $10 grand a night (and waive off all out of pocket costs (deductible and coinsurance cover by rider), wouldn't that result in their choice of choosing the $9838/night Royal Suite as opposed to a $276/night (4-bedder) one in the SAME hospital, meaning a much higher chance of them maxing out the basic medishield-life ward limit cover?
https://www.mountelizabeth.com.sg/cost-financing/room-rates
Image

If a doctor, nurse/ therapist is called for consultation by a patient staying in the royal suite, wouldn't the implication be more than the usual attention and exceptional care to detail, if not for any other reason but the fact that if a patient could afford to pay $9838 for a night stay, then multiple second opinions, if not a lawyers complaint about any lapse in service/treatment standards would be no more than a phone call away.

To suggest that the cause of medical cost overspending is solely in the hospital / practitioners court is perhaps a leap of the imagination and a gross underestimation.

Just as the profit margin from 1st and business class travelers is higher in the airline industry, the same would certainly apply in the hospital operations one which would certainly also bring out all the additional bells and whistles like free meals for accompanying relatives and limousine chauffeur home etc. This is all fine and dandy for a 100% private healthcare insurance system, however, when the balance sheet reveals that the poor are actually subsidising the luxuries of the rich, then something really disgusting and obscene is going on here.
#14895571
From another forum:
Huliwang(sgtalk) wrote:Insurance is something that you must be thankful that others make claims and not you even though you are paying premiums also...... :laughing


The problem with the Singapore design of medishield-life is that with rich people using riders to siphon $$$ from the public insurance pool for all kinds of unnecessary / un-meritorious claims, the system would either have to eventually charge indiscriminately exorbitant premiums, placing stress especially upon the poor (which can result in cancers and diabetes from bad lifestyle choices the consequence of struggling to make ends meet/pay insurance premiums) or else reveal itself to be the ultimate con job that seeks bankruptcy protection such that even those who have managed to survive by struggling hard to live healthy and do honest work find themselves in a bankrupt nation/ state because the leaders have been so corrupt and irresponsible that they used the savings of individuals (prefunding 'insurance' schemes) to buy votes and subsidise the treatment costs of rich people that the system is now bankrupt.

In such a desolate system run under an obviously corrupt pretense (allowing rich people to bypass essential check and balances), then even those left standing would eventually wish that they were already dead.

When loopholes as big as a 60% claims excess revealing themselves in the early years of the inception of our compulsory national healthcare insurance plan, such high hopes for the future remain a pipe dream at best.

You shall be in for a great disappointment if u do not view the current rampant exploitation and abuse plaguing the system with sufficient apprehension and concern.
#15017709
George Dee wrote:This why we prefer here to deal with foreign companies (Americans and European like Axa Singapore).
No one here respect the insurance contract, even your personal data is in danger !

I will talk about my case in example; I use this policy https://www.axa.com.sg/travel-insurance each time when I travel. I've never had an issue with them, but I think that because they're an international company and they are aware of their image.
#15123867
Haha, admission that medishield-life has been a 'scam' for last 5 years.

Hopefully with the correction of integrated plans for private patients being only able to claim 25% (before =35%) of claims, rich people will be more conscious of not exploiting the poor.


https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/lower-payouts-proposed-for-patients-at-private-hospitals

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]

...Which Hamas refuses and wasn't ordered by the […]

@skinster so you confess that Hamas committed ma[…]