In part four of TOC’s Focus on Healthcare series, we took a look at how Singapore’s 3M system (Medisave, MediShield, Medifund) measured-up against those of other developed countries. No single healthcare system is perfect, but it is through open and honest examination of best practices (and worst failures), not sweeping statements like “beware welfarism of The West”, that we can make ours better.

In this article, our foreign correspondent examines the forces at play in the UK’s NHS and the USA’s Obamacare. Is national healthcare best served by market forces, or is a state-funded system more feasible? The diagnosis, we discover, is not quite that clear-cut.

By Ghui

Healthcare and its spiraling costs have been a bone of contention in Singapore of late. Amongst the various concerns raised by Singaporeans, the escalating costs of medical care have been chief.

This is not a situation that is unique to Singapore. The viability of the healthcare reform, dubbed Obamacare in the United States and the sustainability of the National Health Services (NHS) in the United Kingdom have made daily headlines in their respective countries. Tempers have been inflamed and discussions have been impassioned on both sides of the Atlantic, to say the least. Given that healthcare has such an impact on us as a society and has touched each individual personally, the degree of public interest is justified.

The healthcare systems in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore are vastly different. The needs of the various populations are also diverse. It would therefore be an exercise in futility to compare these various systems in a like for like manner. What I will however attempt to do is to contrast intention with result and objective.

The Singapore system is (if we are to generalise) a hybrid of the US and the UK. By and large, we can consider the NHS as funded by the state. This is of course not funded in a vacuum. Taxes are considered high when compared to Singapore and all UK tax payers contribute a certain proportion of their salary to National Insurance. For making that contribution, however, any tax payer can walk into any government hospital or clinic and receive free treatment (excluding prescriptions, which would cost around SGD15 per prescription). This system will also support those who cannot afford to make National Insurance contributions and is distributive in that respect.

For all intents and purposes, British taxpayers will not have to worry about the costs of healthcare unless they wanted private healthcare. This is an amazing idea and very progressive given that it was developed in the 50s in postwar Britain.

However, years of poor management has led to the NHS being overstretched. It is massively in debt and there are ongoing questions as to its sustainability. The process of overhauling the NHS to bring it in line with economic reality is very much an ongoing one. I believe in the viability of the NHS. However, for it to endure, it has to nip endemic work duplication, poor record keeping and coordination in the bud once and for all.

The US on the other hand is completely different. Prior to Obamacare becoming law, US healthcare can be considered elitist. Large chunks of low income Americans had no access to affordable basic healthcare. The very foundations of the prosperity of the USA is built on capitalism. It therefore follows that it would attempt to model its healthcare system on the free market system. After all, if it worked so well for the economy, making it one of the richest and most powerful nations in the world, why wouldn’t it work for the medical sector?

But as Paul Krugman explained, based on Kenneth Arrow’s groundbreaking postwar paper “Uncertainty and the welfare economics of healthcare”, healthcare cannot be marketed like bread or TV. Firstly, it is uncertain – no one knows when they will need it, what they will need or if they will need it. Secondly, if something goes wrong, it can really go wrong and wind up costing an arm or and leg (no pun intended). Most people will therefore be unable to cough up (again, no pun intended) the big bucks in cash.

The fallacy is the reliance on insurance to solve this problem because lest we forget, insurance companies are basically bottomline driven corporations after all and will see claims as a “cost” to the business. More often than not, their profits are directly related to how many claims they have to pay out. Why then are we surprised when a policy is excessively difficult to claim on? Their objectives and our goals as potential claimants are not really in line.

Popular literature and media coverage on both sides of the debate. Obamacare continues to be a point of contention in the US.
Popular literature and media coverage on both sides of the debate. Obamacare continues to be a point of contention in the US.

Long and short of the story – healthcare will not work like a standard market story and government intervention alongside affordable insurance will be necessary. Hence the relevance of Obamacare which in a nutshell creates a marketplace for affordable insurance to the masses.

Many would no doubt raise the many objections that have surfaced against Obamacare. However, it is quite clear that when you dig deeper, most protestors either disagree due to a lack of understanding, or feel that Obamacare should go even further. This is another story altogether but the important point is that the issues are being raised, discussed and addressed.

The US and the UK are in the process of changing their systems. These issues are being debated and discussed at the highest levels of government while being scrutinised by the press. Their respective citizens are keenly following the progress of such high level talks.

Such debate is healthy for a citizenry that have a right to be concerned, and essential is a country wishes to do well in implementing national healthcare. This is something that Singapore will need to emulate, if we wish to see success in our healthcare system.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Ex-NUS Prof: How can anyone survive on less than $1,300 in Singapore?

Dr Ho Ting Fei wrote a letter to ST Forum which was…

Jobs aplenty. It’s S’poreans who aren’t “confident” enough!

In the hotel sector, front line jobs, service jobs, quite a lot…

曾出碟 为多名歌手写歌 音乐之星唐玉璇离世

曾为多名著名歌手写歌,更在新加坡和两名有人共组“闲杂人等”进行街头演唱而爆红的新加坡之星,音乐人唐玉璇于3月8日三度晕倒入院,隔日出院后,于3月10日凌晨在家中忽然逝世,享年48岁。 热爱音乐、甚至自称是为音乐而生的唐玉璇,在和“闲杂人等”另两位伙伴进行演出前,曾表示身体不适,偶尔晕眩。演出过程中,他也曾经晕了一下,随后由伙伴将他送入医院检查。 三度晕倒入院 和唐玉璇同组“闲杂人等”组合的黄绣惠,在接受媒体采访时,如是指出。她也在脸书上称,唐玉璇曾在8日当天三度晕倒,送到新加坡中央医院接受观察一个晚上,因为并没有发现任何病因,所以允许于9日出院。 她指出,医生曾表示唐玉璇的心跳和以前有点不一样,但是没有发现问题,所以让她回家休息。 唐玉璇热爱音乐,就算身体不适,也坚持要把音乐的相关事情安排好。她曾表示自己从小并没有听歌,后来到民歌餐厅驻唱,有不少人点新歌后,她才去学习。后来她在90年代,才成功第一次发片,即是和蔡淳佳、蔡礼莲推出海蝶合辑《Replugged》。 除了热爱唱歌,唐玉璇也曾经为不少著名歌手写歌,作品有刘德华《太多太多的抱歉》、彭羚《肥皂》、许茹芸《执着》和蔡淳佳《看见》等。 组团街头演出爆红 另外,唐玉璇也经营歌唱音乐学校,并和两名友人王志文和黄绣惠共组“闲杂人等”街头艺人演唱,演唱歌曲有包括华语、粤语和英文歌曲。两年前因为街头演唱视频被上载到网路上而忽然爆红,更成为《联合晚报》人气新闻,“闲杂人等”脸书粉丝也在数日内翻倍。 唐玉璇坦言这个组合其实并不太喜欢宣传,但是无可否认的,传媒的力量的确让更多人认识到他们这个组合。“我们努力三年才累积2700名粉丝,但是经过传媒报导后,三四天就增加到超过5000人,虽然很高兴,但是也有点不习惯。” 努力散播音乐力量 唐玉璇也努力散播音乐的力量,她曾经因为身体健康出状况,需要住院留医,平时也要洗肾,发现医院在公共假期非常冷清的情况。…

包括一新企旗下公司 印尼政府29种植企业

上周六(14日),我国空气污染指数(PSI)在下午4时一度突破100点,也是三年来首次进入不健康水平。 不仅是马来西亚,我国也受烟霾问题的影响。不过印尼政府则在本月13日宣布,指该国政府已封锁包括马国和新加坡在内29家种植公司。 隶属马国的四家油棕公司,分别是森那美种植集团的子公司Sime Indo Agro、IOI集团的子公司Sukses Karya Sawit 、嘉隆发展集团的子公司Rafi Kamajaya Abadi,以及吉隆坡甲洞的子公司Adei Plantation and…