There is a school of thinking that the state should not provide health care for the aging population, as this would be too costly and, due to limited resources, this is best left to the private market.
I disagree with this argument. With limited resources, it is important that the resources are used efficiently and not wasted. The private market allocate these resources to those who can afford to pay, but it is likely that the limited resources will be used wastefully, especially as the final allocation is also also determined by the profit earned by the medical profession.
If health care for the elderly is provided or paid by the state, there will be control over the unnecessary medical treatment, as they would be disallowed by the state. Private individuals are not able to know what is necessary or not, but the medical experts working for the state would be in a better position to make this type of decision on the optimal use of the state resources.
Even in America, the health care for the elderly is borne largely by the state. There is a need to prevent excessive consumption of health care by the elderly, but this is a challenge that has to be faced and overcomed. Pushing the problem to the private market does not solve it, as it will lead to worse outcomes.
Tan Kin Lian
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Unfair application of exclusion
A policyholder took a travel insurance policy. He met with an accident and lost a tooth. He required immediate treatment overseas and follow-up treatment in Singapore. He submitted a claim for the dental expenses. He was told that his travel insurance policy excluded "all dental expenses".
This is an unfair application of the exclusion. The exclusion was intended to exclude claims for treatment due to poor dental health, but should not (in my view) be applied to dental treatment arising from an accident.
This is an unfair application of the exclusion. The exclusion was intended to exclude claims for treatment due to poor dental health, but should not (in my view) be applied to dental treatment arising from an accident.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Economist debate: European Holidays
Motion: "This house believes that Europeans would be better off with fewer holidays and higher incomes"
Do Europeans take too many holidays?
Dear Reader,
We have a winner in our debate on vacation time. The team arguing against the motion has won the debate convincingly, with 79% against 21% of the votes. This house does not believe that "Europeans take too much holiday."
The voting record shows the weight of opinion has been consistently 4:1 against the motion from the outset, though the pro team's Robert J Gordon did shift his share of the vote by a few percentage points in the course of the debate. The final vote (and the many laments from the floor by overworked Americans) shows that most readers believe lost income is a price worth paying for extra holidays.
For his part, John de Graaf, arguing against the motion, eloquently made the case that there is more to life than work and money. His argument that Europe has established a better balance between work and leisure was bolstered by the contributions from guest commentators.
John O'Sullivan
Debate Moderator
Economics Correspondent
The Economist
Do Europeans take too many holidays?
Dear Reader,
We have a winner in our debate on vacation time. The team arguing against the motion has won the debate convincingly, with 79% against 21% of the votes. This house does not believe that "Europeans take too much holiday."
The voting record shows the weight of opinion has been consistently 4:1 against the motion from the outset, though the pro team's Robert J Gordon did shift his share of the vote by a few percentage points in the course of the debate. The final vote (and the many laments from the floor by overworked Americans) shows that most readers believe lost income is a price worth paying for extra holidays.
For his part, John de Graaf, arguing against the motion, eloquently made the case that there is more to life than work and money. His argument that Europe has established a better balance between work and leisure was bolstered by the contributions from guest commentators.
John O'Sullivan
Debate Moderator
Economics Correspondent
The Economist
UK Companies Investigation Branch
From UK Daily Mail
2 January 2010
Robert Burns has a blunt message for cheats who set up companies to con the public. 'There is an organisation that can take action against you and put you out of business,' he warns. That organisation is the Companies Investigation Branch. You may not have heard of it - much of its work is confidential - but it may have quietly taken action to stop you falling victim to sharp practice.
Some traditional types of malpractice recur. One involves 'land banking', where plots of land are purchased and sold to investors on the basis that planning permission will be granted.
'We find time and time again that the prospects of planning permission are south of zero,' says Burns.
'In one case, the land had everything wrong with it from a development point of view. It was green belt, a heritage site and was on a flood plain. There was just about every conceivable obstacle.'
2 January 2010
Robert Burns has a blunt message for cheats who set up companies to con the public. 'There is an organisation that can take action against you and put you out of business,' he warns. That organisation is the Companies Investigation Branch. You may not have heard of it - much of its work is confidential - but it may have quietly taken action to stop you falling victim to sharp practice.
Some traditional types of malpractice recur. One involves 'land banking', where plots of land are purchased and sold to investors on the basis that planning permission will be granted.
'We find time and time again that the prospects of planning permission are south of zero,' says Burns.
'In one case, the land had everything wrong with it from a development point of view. It was green belt, a heritage site and was on a flood plain. There was just about every conceivable obstacle.'
The benefits of social insurance
Social insurance is operated differently from private insurance. Social insurance is operated by the state, and is usually compulsory. It is funded partly by contributions from the insured members with the deficit covered by tax revenue.
Examples of social insurance are the unemployment insurance and old age pensions operated by many developed countries. In America, this is called social security. It is popular in America, which is the capital of capitalism and free market. Many countries also have health care insurance operated as a social insurance, e.g. UK, Canada and most countries of Europe.
Under a social health care insurance, there is no need to worry about pre-existing or congential conditions as they are covered. There is the risk of over-consumption of health care services which are paid by insurance, but this can be controlled to a large extent. There is also the need to control the charges made by doctors and hospitals. When the control is exercised by the state, backed by the law, it produced better results than control by private individuals exercising market choice, as can be seen by the high cost incurred by private health care insurance in America.
Singapore has stayed away from social insurance on the fear that they can be abused. This fear is exaggerated, and reflects the mindset of Singaporeans, including our leaders, in avoiding taking personal judgement and responsibility. We have to change this mindset and find new solutions to problems that have been ignored a long time. Private insurance is not suitable to handle problems such as unemployment relief and affordable health care.
Tan Kin Lian
Examples of social insurance are the unemployment insurance and old age pensions operated by many developed countries. In America, this is called social security. It is popular in America, which is the capital of capitalism and free market. Many countries also have health care insurance operated as a social insurance, e.g. UK, Canada and most countries of Europe.
Under a social health care insurance, there is no need to worry about pre-existing or congential conditions as they are covered. There is the risk of over-consumption of health care services which are paid by insurance, but this can be controlled to a large extent. There is also the need to control the charges made by doctors and hospitals. When the control is exercised by the state, backed by the law, it produced better results than control by private individuals exercising market choice, as can be seen by the high cost incurred by private health care insurance in America.
Singapore has stayed away from social insurance on the fear that they can be abused. This fear is exaggerated, and reflects the mindset of Singaporeans, including our leaders, in avoiding taking personal judgement and responsibility. We have to change this mindset and find new solutions to problems that have been ignored a long time. Private insurance is not suitable to handle problems such as unemployment relief and affordable health care.
Tan Kin Lian
Responsible communication
Here are two rulings by the Supreme Court in Canada that recognize the importance of responsible communication made in the public interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)