Free Education and Medical Care : Fact or Myth?

last SG · 2007-06-17T20:45:24+00:00

Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99: [b]Per capita is a Latin phrase meaning for each head.[/b]Tell it to the genius TS. He used "capital" in his initia...

Rock^Star SG

Originally posted by walesa:

The whole notion of this drivel reminds me of a stark picture I had pointed out to another delusional imbecile here. The only difference being the case I'd scrutinised is the UK's rather than Australia's - and that is obviously a system I'm far more familiar with(having lived, worked and utilised the system) than the imbecile who tried outfoxing me by googling nonsensical trash.

What exactly is "free" healthcare? As a matter of fact, Australia's public healthcare (very much like the British NHS) is essentially free "at the point of delivery". Regardless of the amount of National Insurance you pay (or you're exempted from it if you earn below a stipulated amount), you're still entitled to [b]free medical care each time you walk into a public healthcare facility. In essence, you could theoretically very well chalk up medical bills worth a million times more than your contribution in the form of your National Insurance. That's quite unlike the commercial entity you have here whereby you pay-as-you-use.

That, in essence, is an avenue for the government to provide a basic social safety net for its citizens through revenues generated to fund the system (through various forms of taxation). Having said that, the taxes collected in UK fund more than just a public healthcare system. More importantly, the biggest beneficiaries of such social welfare schemes are the low and middle-income groups, whose contributions to taxes aren't the greatest.

I'd struggle to be convinced anyone with a sane mind would actually entertain the notion a penniless, unemployed man (which is the primary group that such social welfare schemes are meant to cater to) needing medical care would actually find a fascist, commercially-run "public healthcare" a more viable solution to his needs than the free public healthcare offered by the British NHS.
[/b]

Your "free" means unlimited usage and not a single cent paid for eg: a trip to the hospital.

Gazelle's "free" means nothing is free, taxes are paid for it.

So who's at fault here?

walesa SG

The point here surrounds the contentious definition of a "free public healthcare". The truth of the matter is, in the UK and Australia, you could walk into any public healthcare facility without a penny on you and you'd still enjoy the free (from cost) medical facilities.

Mind, while you could make a case that such facilities are funded by taxes, it's worth noting taxes fund more than just a public healthcare. More importantly, in the UK and Australia, you're entitled to the same medical coverage even if you do not pay any tax - can you say the same about this regime? Wink

Gazelle SG

Rock_Star,

a) There is no point showing you the links to the source of information because you dont look like someone that will take times to read. You know why I said that? Its because the links are already provided and you dont need to be a finance minister to know where to look Singapore income tax collection.
b) You are asking about Tax/Benefit ratio, can you tell us what is the purpose and how we should compute this ratio and if you are prepare to comment on the ratio?

The purpose of this thread is to clear the myth that the so-called free health care and education benefit in australia is not free afterall and infact you will usually end up paying more than you use unless you are a beach bumer

maurizio13 SG

Isn't this clear now!!!

First you included superannuation, when it is shown that it doesn't suit your purpose, you exclude it from your calculation to present a contrasting picture.

Goes to show what your ulterior motives are, mislead the public with misinformation, then coax them to the government's side.

Mr. Green

Rock^Star SG

I have read through your first 3 links. I have just noticed there are 1 or 2 more. Given the number of figures and this concept of "superannuation", would it hurt you to re-highlight the link? Don't you want readers to have an easier time comprehending your posts by pointing out the exact spot where you extracted your information from?

I'm just asking how you derived your figure of Income Tax Revenue : S$149.3 billion / yr (including superannuation tax and fringe benefit tax).

Tax/Benefit ratio: take the total benefits allocated by the Australian and Singaporean governments in their budgets and divide by the total tax collected respectively. Compare the ratios and see which government offers more value as per tax collected.

Wouldn't that shut people up who say that Australia is better?

Gazelle SG

M13, the purpose of this thread is about clearing the myth that the so-called free education and healthcare in Australia is infact not free and as an australian you will usually end up paying more than what you will get.

Irregardless if I include the super fund or not, it will still be the same, ie., australian are paying more than twice the amount of income tax Singaporeans are paying and only fraction of these extra is going to funding their healthcare, education and unemployment.

Rock^Star SG

What about Singapore? The high income earners pay much more tax than the average joe but still have to pay fees upon their own hospitalisation. Isn't this paying even more?

Gazelle SG

1) Majority of high income doesnt seek public healthcare they go for private hospital

2) Top income bracket tax rate for australia and singapore is 45% and 20% respectively. Hence i wont consider high income singaporeas as paying alot for tax

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Majority of high income doesnt seek public healthcare they go for private hospital

Not necessary.

2) Top income bracket tax rate for australia and singapore is 45% and 20% respectively. Hence i wont consider high income singaporeas as paying alot for tax

Subjective. If the right insurance is not purchased, a cancer that costs $200,000 to treat in Singapore is not worth it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to qualify as top bracket income earner, you need to hit an annual income of $320,000, which is about $26,000 per month.

a) Do you have reasons to believe these people will lead a life without a comprehensive insurance portfolio?

b) And these people will have the patience to spend 3 to 4 hours waiting time at government clinic and hospital, and not get the best medical care money can buy?

Rock^Star SG

Have you spoken with this echelon of people about insurance planning before? I sure have not spoken to many but from those I have had the pleasure to interact with, most buy because of relationship. And relationship does not equate a comprehensive planning.

Why wouldn't rich people who earn $26,000 month go SGH or TTSH? High income also means high expenses. A car instalment can go as high as $10,000 per month.

And are you going to do the benefit/tax ratio and follow up your argument a not? I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, accept and comment on the truth you bring out.

Gazelle SG

a) I buy insurance because I want to ensure that my families will sitll be able to enjoy the same standard of living if something happen to me. Yes, that is relationship, but not with insurance agent, but with my family.

b) Why no SGH or TTS? because there is a long waiting time, they dont have the best equipment, facilities, high profile doctors and service like those you find in the private hospital.

(Anyway, this thread is not aboue speculating how a millionaire should be spending his money. I dont see a need to continue this discussion)

c) Since you are one that suggested the tax/benefit ratio, I think you will be the best person in this forum to compile it. And I will be most willing to help you by providing some links which may be useful.
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2007/revenue_expenditure/attachment/Revenue_Estimates.pdf

http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2007/revenue_expenditure/attachment/Expenditure_Estimates.pdf

http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/myefo/html/index.htm#TopOfPage

Rock^Star SG

Haven't you always wanted to show the "naysayers" that Singapore is not what they claim?

Though I do not agree with many of your posts but this thread of yours has certainly incited this benefit/tax ratio thought. I admire your resilience (though I think you tend to twist words very much). If you have got your own way to prove Singapore is better than Australia in terms of benefits per amount of tax paid, why not? We don't want to see an NKF where out of $1, only $0.10 went to charity, do we?

I would like to see the truth too.

The ball is in your court.

maurizio13 SG

When you find that you are losing the logic in the argument, you retreat to higher ground (it's still not high ground, you are still standing in a ravine), you change your argument to "free education and healthcare in Australia is infact not free", whatever it is, it is still free to the common folks, because they don't pay for it, although they pay for it in taxes. But look at their country statistics, they have literacy rate of 99% and doctors to 1,000 population of 2.5.

If your intentions are just to show that it's not free, then there would be no need for you to put Singapore's figures against Australia's, you are making a comparison, but a very distorted comparison.

Australian paying twice the amount? Another distorted comparison, Australians like you say, don't have to pay for education and healthcare. It's like comparing an Australian company that sells you product A and B for $100 and a Singaporean company that sells you product A for $60, then charge you another $60 for product B.

Their payment of taxes pays for all their healthcare and education, whereas we pay less tax on paper, but we end up paying all the education and healthcare cost.

As a result of our system, we have an adult literacy rate of 92.5%, while Australia has an adult literacy rate of 99.0%.

Singapore has 1.4 doctors per 1,000 population, while Australia has 2.5 doctors per 1,000 population.

Gazelle SG

RS, since you are the ONLY one that has initiated us to use this benefit/tax ratio to measure the attractiveness of both countries, I am sure you must have had the experience and neccessary knowledge in using them cause you cant be so stupid to be asking something which you are incapable of explaining right?

As I am new to this ratio, hence i would like to ask you

a) What should be classified under benefits from the government expenditure?

e.g Is buying weapons to protect our country consider as benefits?

e.g Is running our country will little debt consider as benefit

e.g. Is building MRT and new highway consider as benefits.

b) Who is to decide what is and what is not consider as benefits?

If you want to teach us a new ball game, I think it is better that you first spell out the rule of the game or else you will always be the meaningless winner.

So Mr. Rock_Star, the ball is now in your hand, you got to tell us what to do with it because we can play!!

Rock^Star SG

I still cannot figure out how you derived your figure of Income Tax Revenue : S$149.3 billion / yr (including superannuation tax and fringe benefit tax).

Based on the the above information:

Total individuals and others withholding taxation + fringe benefits tax + Total superannuation taxation = A$116.14 b + A$3.73 b + A$6.97 b

The above = A$126.84 billion

Convert it to S$ based on your provided exchange rate of A$1=S$1.25, that means a sum of A$126.84 b x 1.25 = S$158.5 billion.

Kindly enlighten me.

Gazelle SG

It is good that you finally decided do stop hiding under the skirt, as per your request,

a) Are you sure that all healthcare and education in Australia are provided by the government and you dont need to pay a single cent the moment you are born into the country? Or you have no clue what you are talking about?

b) This thread is talking about is the healthcare and education COST in Australia, we are not talking about the quality of heathcare and education in Australia. Hence I dont see your point of comparing the above statistic. If this is of great interest to you, why dont you start a thread just focusing on that subject?

If you want to challenge what I have posted, I suggest you do it with facts that is related to our discussion.

Rock^Star SG

Oh cool it cool it, I broached this issue with sincerity. Do not test me with challenges issued with sarcasm, for there's nothing that I do without confidence.

Explain to my post at 11:27pm, give me the right figure with a proper breakdown and I shall quench your thirst for knowledge.

walesa SG

Even taking his flawed logic at face value and analyse it from a consumer protection perspective, I struggle to come to terms with how free education and medical care are actually "myths".

If a shop advertised a product as "Buy 1 Get 1 Free"(which, no doubt, would have factored in the cost of the second item which is free), I don't suppose you could accuse the proprietor of fraud through deception(as a matter of fact, there'd be no case even in countries with the most stringent consumer protection laws), could you? Cool

Gazelle SG

RS, If you are sincere, why dont you just explain to us how we should calculate and use tax/benefit ratio, i think that is more important than discussing your post of 11.27pm isnt it?

« Previous Page Next Page »