Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[pirate]

Irrelevant:

In Singapore, the government prefer to count land sales as capital instead. You reckon we should adopt Hong Kong's practice of counting land sales as income too?

Theoretically, since gov land sales are on 99 year, 60 year, 30 year etc leases, we should be amortising the land sales at 1.01%, 1.667%, 3.333% and transferring that from capital reserves to income every year.

[WeiHan]

Irrelevant:

WeiHan:

Budget surplus was at approximately 7-10% of GDP for the last 2-3 years and even more for the last few decades.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.BAL.CASH.GD.ZS

I believe the \"surplus\" was arrived at after counting land sales as income. In Singapore, the government prefer to count land sales as capital instead. You reckon we should adopt Hong Kong's practice of counting land sales as income too?

Incidentally, you are still avoiding my question on how many % of GDP to spend on healthcare wor. If we wish to spend 10% of GDP on healthcare (a number u like to mention), we need another 20 billion. Where can we find 20 billion?? Cut defence and education by 80%?

Apparently, Taiwan is able to implement their successful National Healthcare Insurance system with merely a 5.8% of GDP expenditure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan

However, in view that a co-pay system is effective in reducing abusing of the system, we can consider implement something that is half or 3/4 of that. I believe, we will just need less than 5.8% of GDP. 4.5 or 5% of GDP will make our healthcare system much more affordable and at the same time prevent against abuse.

I am not sure the surplus come from landsale or not but my guess is that it is not because we don't have many landsale in the 80s and yet our surplus during that period was nearly 20% of GDP.

[JannettLee]

pirate:

JannettLee:

Since when I don't get it! :? I don't even mention it. You are the one who mention the manpower cost.

What has this Manpower cost got to do with the GST cost that I mentioned.

You were the one who were going on and on about how GST is the reason why the cost of living is going up in Singapore. You put it at No. 1 some more.

I'm just pointing out that part of the reason that cost of living has gone up is because income has gone up. And it will go up some more as the gov tighten the foreign worker dependency ratio.

You think all this \"FT go home\" xenophobia got no cost meh?

Looked at my posting! I've been persistently saying that I support the white paper and have never mentioned about asking gahman to tighten the foreign worker dependency ratio? :?

Yes, I have been going on and on about how GST is the reason why the cost of living is going up in Singapore and I still stand my point!

[pirate]

JannettLee:

I'm not saying the they should totally remove GST but rather do something to alleviate the impact from GST for those who are SAHM, unemployed, children, old retired or old sick parents.

Sheesh, what a roundabout way to say bigger GST vouchers. This one I am not going to argue with you since I am not necessarily in disagreement. :hugs:

[JannettLee]

pirate:

JannettLee:

I'm not saying the they should totally remove GST but rather do something to alleviate the impact from GST for those who are SAHM, unemployed, children, old retired or old sick parents.

Sheesh, what a roundabout way to say bigger GST vouchers. This one I am not going to argue with you since I am not necessarily in disagreement. :hugs:

How many people who are entertained to this GST vouchers let alone bigger GST vouchers?

I should not be the one who provide solution for them tackle this problem.

If those who are drawing million dollars of salaries can't really came out with the solution, they can make reference to those western countries such as waiving GST for those basic food, necessitates, medical expenses and children products for Singapore citizen - a scheme for Singapore citizen to claim back GST.

[WeiHan]

Irrelevant:

Incidentally, you are still avoiding my question on how many % of GDP to spend on healthcare wor. If we wish to spend 10% of GDP on healthcare (a number u like to mention), we need another 20 billion. Where can we find 20 billion?? Cut defence and education by 80%?

In one of the thread, we were making fun at Vikram. You sure sound alot like him....\"where the money come from?....\"

[pirate]

WeiHan:

However, in view that a co-pay system is effective in reducing abusing of the system, we can consider implement something that is half or 3/4 of that. I believe, we will just need less than 5.8% of GDP. 4.5 or 5% of GDP will make our healthcare system much more affordable and at the same time prevent against abuse.


I am not sure the surplus come from landsale or not but my guess is that it is not because we don't have many landsale in the 80s and yet our surplus during that period was nearly 20% of GDP.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on this wor.

I just want to add a point that I feel uneasy when policy makers talk about 'abuse' of healthcare. Sure, there are a minority of hypochondriacs, but other than them, most of us would like to avoid going to the hospital, clinic or whatever if possible. So, I personally find that all too convenient word 'abuse' often difficult to apply.

If, heaven forbids, my kid should fall seriously ill, surely I would want the best treatment possible for her, especially if the alternative is death. Perhaps it may be a horrendously expensive treatment. Is it abuse? Maybe the cost is high and the chances are not good. But is it abuse? Before our policy makers classify something as 'abuse', I feel they should ask themselves if it were their loved one would they have chosen differently?

And then we go down the slippery slope towards this life is worth more than that life because the family of the first one can afford to pay for it.

[WeiHan]

pirate:

WeiHan:

However, in view that a co-pay system is effective in reducing abusing of the system, we can consider implement something that is half or 3/4 of that. I believe, we will just need less than 5.8% of GDP. 4.5 or 5% of GDP will make our healthcare system much more affordable and at the same time prevent against abuse.


I am not sure the surplus come from landsale or not but my guess is that it is not because we don't have many landsale in the 80s and yet our surplus during that period was nearly 20% of GDP.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on this wor.

I just want to add a point that I feel uneasy when policy makers talk about 'abuse' of healthcare. Sure, there are a minority of hypochondriacs, but other than them, most of us would like to avoid going to the hospital, clinic or whatever if possible. So, I personally find that all too convenient word 'abuse' often difficult to apply.

If, heaven forbids, my kid should fall seriously ill, surely I would want the best treatment possible for her, especially if the alternative is death. Perhaps it may be a horrendously expensive treatment. Is it abuse? Maybe the cost is high and the chances are not good. But is it abuse? Before our policy makers classify something as 'abuse', I feel they should ask themselves if it were their loved one would they have chosen differently?

And then we go down the slippery slope towards this life is worth more than that life because the family of the first one can afford to pay for it.

Good point!

There wasn't much abuse in the Taiwan system for example.

[3Boys]

http://www.gstvoucher.gov.sg/faqs.html

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

pirate:

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on this wor.

I just want to add a point that I feel uneasy when policy makers talk about 'abuse' of healthcare. Sure, there are a minority of hypochondriacs, but other than them, most of us would like to avoid going to the hospital, clinic or whatever if possible. So, I personally find that all too convenient word 'abuse' often difficult to apply.

If, heaven forbids, my kid should fall seriously ill, surely I would want the best treatment possible for her, especially if the alternative is death. Perhaps it may be a horrendously expensive treatment. Is it abuse? Maybe the cost is high and the chances are not good. But is it abuse? Before our policy makers classify something as 'abuse', I feel they should ask themselves if it were their loved one would they have chosen differently?

And then we go down the slippery slope towards this life is worth more than that life because the family of the first one can afford to pay for it.

Good point!

There wasn't much abuse in the Taiwan system for example.

Until the abuse starts, which it invariably does.....sorry boys, disagree with you both, abuse is already rampant in our system.