Skip to main content

$8 Heart Bypass, Free Rider and Lower Socioeconomic Class



    The important lesson of the $8 hospital bypass bill of Khaw Boon Wan in 2011 is to buy additional medical insurance coverage like, free riders.  However, free riders are not free, you need to use medisave or cash to buy it. And, in many ways, the ability to use extra money to purchase free riders also reflects your socioeconomic class.

    Our Medishield Life is mainly for Class C/B2 wards in the public hospitals:  

MediShield Life  is sized for subsidised treatment in public hospitals. Those who choose to stay in a Class A/B1 wards or in a private hospital are also covered by MediShield Life. However, as MediShield Life payouts are pegged at Class B2/C wards, the MediShield Life payout will make up a small proportion of the bill only. The patient may therefore need to pay more of their bill from Medisave and/or cash.
If you plan to use Class A/B1 wards in the public hospital or go to a private hospital for your future hospitalisations, you may also wish to consider purchasing Medisave-approved private Integrated Shield Plans (IPs).
IPs are made up of two components – MediShield Life and additional private insurance coverage providing additional benefits and coverage (e.g. to cover the costs of private hospitals or Class A/B1 wards in the public hospitals).
https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/costs_and_financing/schemes_subsidies/Medishield.html
    
    MediShield Life is a co-payment system even with government subsidies. The only way to avoid co-payment and enjoy $0 hospital bill is to purchase IPs with free riders. It means you have to pay extra either using medisave or cash as there is a cap on medisave usessage.

    This is in fact a financial risk management.

Upgrading using medisave or cash
   
    What risk? Sick and illness are unpredictable, for example, there is a need to upgrade to Class B1/A wards because of the long wait at the emergency department or there is a need to choose a specialist to do the operation. Or, people just want go to private hospitals for better and faster treatment.

    There is a big difference in financial commitment with or without free riders/IPs in the case of the upgrading of wards.

    Medishield Life is a basic medical insurance for lower and middle socioeconomic class.  With lower medisave contribution and lower cash position, it means a lower financial mean to purchase free riders. However, if one is forced to upgrade for whatever reason, he or she will be in a losing position as compared to someone who has purchased free riders or IPs.

    The premium for free riders or IPs will protect the buyers for higher hospital bills and co-payment. Lower socioeconomic class people will suffer a lot by just doing an upgrade. A situation similar to “rich getting richer, poor getting poorer”.  
Free rider is not free but protect big bill

    Free rider is not free even medisave is used. Medisave is your contribution, your money at CPF Board. For high socioeconomic class people, they make more contribution and so they are likely to purchase free riders and IPs (upgrade to even private hospitals).  They can also afford to pay cash for free raider premium.

    Free riders can help them to pay for big hospital bill, like the case of $8 heart bypass operation. Khaw and other ministers are high income earners and they also know the financial risk if they are hospitalised. They can even buy free riders for their children and loved ones.

    Not all CPF members buy free riders or IPs. For those who do not buy these additional insurance, they will have to face the financial risk of having to pay more if they decide to upgrade to higher class wards.   

A medical model based on free riders

    However, for medical industry, the practice is to go for market rate whether patients buy free riders or IPs or not.  For those people who have no IPs or free riders, for financial risk consideration, staying at Class C/B2 wards is the best option. Even after government subsidy, they still need to pay the co-payment.

    Not only medical professionals have this “free riders” mindset, patients who buy free riders insurance also want to make use of this advantage of zero copayment insurance.  

    This creates a biased situation that those cannot afford and unwilling to buy free riders end up losing out. These group of people, most likely lower socioeconomic class, in fact, are helping to keep the medical cost down but may end up paying the most, even with subsidy, especially in the case that they need to upgrade to higher class.

    There is no surprise the Singapore Medical Council has to issue a reminder to keep costs down.  


Do you think the 5% co-payment for new IPs will work?

In fact, medical insurance and free riders can also be an indicator for socioeconomic class - whether you can afford to purchase free riders and IPs or not.   
 
Lower socioeconomic class is NOT LOW CLASS

    Lower socioeconomic class seems to indicate low class people as shown in the debate of the controversy secondary school guide book.


    In ancient China, there are two famous philosophers, Mozi and Zhuangzi, who are well known for their lower socioeconomic class. They dress poorly and have no money.

When Zhuangzi went to meet King LiangHui. The King commented on Zhuangzi’s poor. However, Zhuangzi replied he was materials and assets poor but spirit high.

Comments

  1. Medical Insurance Singapore


    Welcome to FPL-Online Insurance Company in Singapore, We are best insurance agent/brokers in Singapore that offer the best Medical, Home, General, Motor, Travel insurance services in Singapore. Contact us – 65 96 756 403


    https://www.fpl-online.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is an excellent blog, I have ever seen. I found all the material on this blog utmost unique and well written. And, I have decided to visit it again and again. ryder cup 2020 live stream

    ReplyDelete
  3. Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer!.. oet online coaching

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...