continuation from above:
Even in the People's Republic of China, the Health Care System
maybe backward by Western Standards, but it is in no way lower than
the standards of Singapore when looking at the vastness of the
country and the size of its population. [/b]
Don't talk about China - china is now capitalist rather than
communist , they do have rich people there now who can afford
quality privatised healthcare overseas - why not take a look at the
rural /remote areas of china, care of the minority groups and talk
about them. Stratify them by economic status and geographical
location , I am sure you will find a huge disparity in their health
status which cannot be compared to Singapore.
China is as much a communist
political state as it follow the capitalist pragmatic economic
policies, while Singapore is as much a Capitalist state but follow
the Communist pragmatic political policies of a domineering ONE
PARTY STATE.
Yet the effectiveness in which the PRC Government has implemented
its low cost and all rounded basic and secondary health care, with
advances made in medical and health care research, surely put the
Singapore Government to shame - considering the vastness of China
as a country and for its population size.
Can the POWER OF ONE IN SINGAPORE be any more effective and
successful with the First Generation of FOUNDING FATHERS - if they
have governed China instead of Singapore ?
Could Singapore have fared better if we had been less capitalistic
in our health and medical care system, and perhaps meet the
Singaporean needs somewhere in the middle - the Japanese System
(see above) ?
Unless you are a health economist with the know how of implementing
policies - talk is cheap ,action isn't.
Why do learned person like you and
oxford mushroom fall into the ever dubious trap that it takes an
specialist to be an expert, and only specialists should think of
the possible alternatives ?
Why is an Educationist never be the Minister of Education ?
In the FORTY YEARS OF SINGAPORE's HISTORY, what could be the reason
for NOT HAVING Specialist Doctors ever to be the Minister of Health
?
Could he be TOO SPECIALISED AND NARROW in his thinking ?
Could the POWER OF ONE be spewing all the glorious talk, WITHOUT
the minions of Civil Servants and Specialists doing all the
research - so that the POWER OF ONE is seen to be OMINPOTENT
?
Certainly "Talk is cheap" - no doubt about that, but it takes time
and genious to think of the "TALK" - while the narrow sloggers does
the work to fill out the details and flesh out the skeleton that
form the foundation of glorious policies.
For the part about quality of life and life expectancy. I am all
for terminal patients receiving pallative care but hey what if
their relatives don't accept it? If you stop them , they will say
that you are letting their loved one die without trying and they
might attempt to sue . There are processes to Grief , two of which
is undesirable : Denial and Anger. No doubt if it was my mother , I
would kick up a huge ruckus before I even accept it. Damn if the
doctors do , Damn if the doctors don't. How are you going to solve
that?
Lets be practical.
Surely you would have heard of "Living Will" ?
Society has to be educated to know of the consequences of their
health conditions, and be given enough choices to decide in advance
- once their terminal condition is diagnosed.
This will allow their "Living Will" to take over-riding precedence
to the "wishy-washy" wishes of the surviving members. This is not
said in jest, as I have seen close members of families and friends
going through the anguish and pain to let their love one move on -
some as young as six years old (too young to make any independent
choice).