Don't get so worked-up.
Anyway my 2 cents worth.
I did medical training in Europe, did 1 year of training in
Singapore and then , then USA training for years.
I can tell you some of the good points and bad points about each
system.
The bottomline - THERE IS NO PERFECT SYSTEM.
The system has to work for the people on what their healthcare
beliefs and philosophy are.
Issue 1: Life expectancy - Why are we so hung up about comparing
life expectancies between Singapore and other countries vis a vis
healthcare expenditure as a portion of the public budget?
Many of the countries with high expenditures are developed nations
with mainly white populations - maybe they are expected to live to
70 to 80 years old and if we spend just as much, Singaporeans will
live to 90 to 100 years old.
Issue 2: We generally only have one acute illness reimbursement
system and no chronic illness insurance/reimbursement system.
Some folks live to 60 years and finds out that they have renal
failure and need chronic dialysis but they don't want it (their
attitude towards life) so they perhaps should purchase insurance
that does not cover dialysis. Others may want everything done so
they should spend on the top-tier medical insurance that roughly
runs about US$300 to 1000 per month that covers also experimental
therapies. These are personal choices and freedom of choice can be
encouraged if the current government guides the development of
these choices instead of just leaving it to the private
sector.
We need about 5-6 classes of nationally (mutualized - not private
medical insurance companies) run medical insurance to provide
coverage according to people's attitudes towards healthcare.
Issue 3: Folks not in the know - there is truly a biomedical
revolution going on here. But all these require funding to maintain
doctor's competency and also gets ploughed back for further
R&D.
Singapore does not do much and does not have proprietary
techniques, medications, technology, etc. becuase we don't put our
money into our healthcare sector for all these to be
self-sustaining in generating these new ideas - so newer
drugs/devices that have been shown to improve morbidty and
mortality - we pay through our nose to other developed countries
which then again funds their technological drive.
Issue 4: More doctors means they will treat more, so costs go up.
That is a fallacy, in keeping with the biomedical revolution,
doctors are, have and are now actively conducting clinical trials
to translate these advances into practical applications. In time
they get incorporated into practice guidelines. In my training the
same amount of time to cover a specialty is now expended to cover a
lot more areas that have developed into further
super-sub-specialties, and I can tell you, I am drowning in
information overload.
You can only get good in smaller areas becuase all these smaller
areas of expertise have further bloom to full-fledged sciences and
training - so you need more doctors if you want really competent
and knowledgeable doctors.
The basics are basics - stop smoking, proper diet and public health
measures are cruicial in avoiding repetitive insults to the
chronically ill and precipitating acute illnesses. However, like me
and other Singaporeans - how many of you still eat junk food and
all sorts of crap?
Because it is the Singaporean way of life - besides, healthy food
costs more - so we save and enjoy our food and plop it down for a
bypass surgery later on in life. 
Healthcare funding and costs of healthcare is a complex issue and a
multiprong approach is required.
The fundamental truth that underlies "service" is the same - what
you pay is what you get.
When you pay "peanuts" you get NKF, when you pay properly for
services to cover yourself - you get less ambiguity on the type and
quality and assurance of treatment.