The idea of a national healthcare fund does not seem to appeal
to some Singaporeans, even though this indicates significantly
higher subsidies for services.
Responding to the recent release of the Singapore Democratic
Party (SDP)’s alternative healthcare plan, Yahoo! Singapore readers
took issue with the idea of unemployed citizens enjoying free
healthcare, while others felt that the plan was not dealing with
the right issues.
In its scheme, the SDP proposes that the
current ‘3Ms’ system in place — Medisave, MediShield and Medifund —
should be removed, with Medisave monies being returned to account
holders’ CPF Ordinary Accounts, and in place,
implement a national fund that pays for treatment for compulsory
basic health, accidents and pregnancy, for Singaporeans and
permanent residents here for more than six months in the year.
“There should be no social welfare for those who don’t work.
This message must be out clear,” said Dennis Lee, who opposed the
idea of unemployed Singaporeans getting free healthcare. “Why
should I pay taxes and feed people who don’t work?”
“What we need now is a good affordable healthcare system for
common folks,” said user Pak Geok Choo, who noted that plenty of
good work was done during the baby boom by maternity and childcare
clinics, with children receiving free vaccinations. “For those who
want better or upmarket service, they can opt to go private,” she
added.
Another user, Darrel Tan, took issue with the notion of the
national fund, saying that not all Singaporeans may have to use it
even though they are required to contribute to it.
“It isn’t fair for us to fork out a sum of money every year
where the majority of us won’t be using it,” he wrote, noting also
that any benefits or subsidies will be offset by rising healthcare
costs as well.
“The important thing is to lower the cost (of healthcare here),
not how to pay for it,” he said, adding that conditions for
Medisave payouts and use could be more flexible in order for more
Singaporeans to have access to their saved money.
Undergraduate Jason Salim also opposed the scheme, saying that
even countries that do apply similar healthcare plans are grappling
with their unsustainability.
“(The 3M approach) is fiscally sustainable in the long run
because it puts little pressure on the public coffers and does not
require a large bureaucracy to manage,” wrote Salim, who added that
administration of the SDP’s health programme
will require tax increases.
He pointed out that in Canada, where he is currently based,
students like him pay S$80 every month for mandatory state health
insurance, and this amount will increase to compensate for rising
healthcare costs.
“Even then, there is still a shortage of rooms and nurses in
addition to long waiting times,” he said.
Under the SDP’s scheme, devised over a
nine-month period by a panel of 10 healthcare professionals working
in both the private and public sectors, the proposed national fund
will be used to operate both public and private healthcare
institutions, and also cover all healthcare services, apart from an
exclusion list that includes dental services, fertility treatment
and aesthetic healthcare, said the party.
For this, it calls for an increased government contribution of
$10.5 billion (about 3.2 per cent of GDP)
from its current $4 billion (about 1.4 per cent of GDP), in order to form the majority of the $12 billion
spent on healthcare in Singapore in 2010. This, the party says, can
be funded by cuts in defence spending, the introduction of a luxury
tax and property sales taxes for foreigners, and the increment of
corporate tax rates by between 1 and 2 per cent.
Singaporeans will be required to contribute to the fund, paying
between $300 and $600 annually from their CPF
or bank accounts. PRs will pay a slightly higher amount, between
$400 and $700, while the financially needy will receive further
assistance, with some receiving complete subsidy from the
government. Residents who contribute to the healthcare scheme will
receive a 90 per cent subsidy for healthcare services, except for
primary and secondary care illnesses.
Its measure to avoid abuse or over-consumption of treatment: a
10 per cent co-payment fee for services, up to a maximum of $2,000
per year.
Noting that under the current healthcare system, patients owed
the government some $110 million in hospital fees at the end of
last year, the SDP said its new scheme will
make healthcare significantly more affordable for lower-income
groups and eliminate hospitalisation debt, because the poor and
unemployed will be subsidised in full for treatment.
Its scheme also eliminates ward classes in hospitals, which the
party says currently determines waiting time for operations and the
standard of treatment administered to patients.
======
will there ever be a system that suits everyone?
