I refer to the report, “Hard choices needed on healthcare: PM” (Feb 11).
By year end, MediShield Life will replace MediShield to provide citizens with universal coverage. The promise to protect those who have pre-existing ailments, regardless of age, sounds noble, but can the lower-income group afford the premiums?
The shift, during the 1980s, from the previous government-funded plan to an emphasis on the current co-payment model has been hard on individuals coping with the high cost of living.
This was when restructured hospitals came into existence, run as private companies licensed under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act. Charges at these institutions rose, in spite of government grants, without achieving the efficiencies of the private sector.
While the Prime Minister reiterated that there is no free lunch, in order to forestall possible abuses in health-care spending, the amount patients must foot is no longer a token sum.
Health care is an emotional and political issue because the infinite demand must be managed using finite resources. With government subsidies directed at the lower-income, the burden of and responsibility for health care weighs heavily on middle-income earners.
Without the resources of the higher-income, they do not feel assured that the cost of treatment is within their means, but rather that access to quality care is determined by one’s ability to pay.
The principle that health care must not be free at point of service has been entrenched since the People’s Action Party came into power in 1959. The 50-cents co-payment during that time, however, is a far cry from today’s deductibles.
Since government spending on health care is extremely low, at 1.6 per cent of gross domestic product, why is the responsibility for considerable co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses, as well as the burden of risk, placed so heavily on our shoulders?
By year end, MediShield Life will replace MediShield to provide citizens with universal coverage. The promise to protect those who have pre-existing ailments, regardless of age, sounds noble, but can the lower-income group afford the premiums?
The shift, during the 1980s, from the previous government-funded plan to an emphasis on the current co-payment model has been hard on individuals coping with the high cost of living.
This was when restructured hospitals came into existence, run as private companies licensed under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act. Charges at these institutions rose, in spite of government grants, without achieving the efficiencies of the private sector.
While the Prime Minister reiterated that there is no free lunch, in order to forestall possible abuses in health-care spending, the amount patients must foot is no longer a token sum.
Health care is an emotional and political issue because the infinite demand must be managed using finite resources. With government subsidies directed at the lower-income, the burden of and responsibility for health care weighs heavily on middle-income earners.
Without the resources of the higher-income, they do not feel assured that the cost of treatment is within their means, but rather that access to quality care is determined by one’s ability to pay.
The principle that health care must not be free at point of service has been entrenched since the People’s Action Party came into power in 1959. The 50-cents co-payment during that time, however, is a far cry from today’s deductibles.
Since government spending on health care is extremely low, at 1.6 per cent of gross domestic product, why is the responsibility for considerable co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses, as well as the burden of risk, placed so heavily on our shoulders?
