Like private insurers, government run compulsory healthcare insurance should also give freebies and discounts to encourage citizens to keep fit.... "Those who pass all four health markers Body Mass Index, blood pressure, fasting blood glucose and cholesterol and are currently insured under NTUC Incomes IncomeShield or Enhanced IncomeShield will receive a S$50 CapitaMall shopping voucher each year that they take the test. Singaporeans who are not yet insured with NTUC Income will receive a S$50 discount off their first year premiums if they decide to sign up for Enhanced IncomeShield."[Rewards await healthy NTUC Income clients (TDY, 28May2015)] For one thing, I believe that medishield-life premiums are probably going to increase exponentially no matter how much 'prefunding' premised deductions are made from individual CPF medisave accounts if there is no policy effort at promoting/ rewarding healthy lifestyle adoption amongst (compulsory) insurance policy holders. The future average national medishield-life healthcare insurance policyholder if healthy-lifestyles is not promoted/ encouraged: pict source: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/12/fat-lazy-now-disability/# In anycase, chronic-disease and absenteeism is already catching up with the average Singaporean: 'A new dialysis patient every 5 hours in S'pore' [ST, May 10 2015] PS: For those suffering from genetic diseases so severe that they might die before chronic disease sets in, government should pay their medishield-life premiums if they are minors or if income low. Those with genetic diseases causing health markers to go awry (e.g. Type one diabetes etc), some proximate marker of fitness or adherence to treatment would qualify such a person for premium discount. For those already plagued by chronic disease (hypertensive, high-cholesterol, diabetic etc): up to 50% discount as compared to a healthy person (pass annual health screen with flying colours) if treatment adherence is maintained. References: In regard of the early adoption of a healthy lifestyle, it has since been proven that 'Healthy Lifestyle May Prevent 86% Of Heart Attacks' [Åkesson, A et al 'Low-risk diet and lifestyle habits in the primary prevention of myocardial infarction in Men' J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1190.] Medishield-life provisional rates: [source][backup IMG]
Neither Government Run health care or private health care should be legally required to pay for free health care. Especially private health insurance companies. I can't even believe it is Constitutional to force them to do so. Note I said "pay" for free health care. Because that is what taxpayers are doing and what private insurance companies are doing when Obama Care demands private insurance pay for free diagnostic tests and the like and taxpayers pay to subsidize those who have no pre-existing condition and are not indigent.
Do you actually have any ideas? We have always paid for free healthcare one way or another. This is nothing new with the ACA. Wake up and have an idea and stop pretending the problem with American healthcare started with Obama.
Never said the problem with health care started with Obama. It started when the Federal government failed to regulate Health Insurance Companies, giving them a pass on the Sherman Act and other Insurance regulatory laws. We were discussing the free health care the PPACA "does" mandate. And the only other "free health care" is mandated by Federal Law, the law that requires that no Medical facility turn away an emergency patient regardless of ability to pay. Other than these two examples, I don't know what you are talking about. The problem with Health Insurance, quite different from Health Care; started in the early 1990's when the Government allowed the onset of managed care, HMO's and PPO's. And, perhaps you are unaware that eventhough the Congress has not reduced Medicare Reimbursements to Providers, they haven't , "increased reimbursements" to keep up with inflation/the cost of doing business either. In 2010, December, in dead of night, the Dems passed the PPACA saying it would reduce premiums, lower cost to taxpayers as fewer individuals would seek ER treatment. Unfortunately, neither has occurred. Why, because the very people that sought E.R. care are not subject to the individual mandate as they earn too little or are non-u.s. residents. And, since Medicaid fails to cover many medical visits/care/surgery, these patients also seek E.R. care. And, when deductibles haven't been met and the patient can't afford to pay, they are still treated and we and taxpayers pay. So in addition to continuing to pay for these ER patients we also now pay to subsidize their premiums. Often doing both.
The problem with health insurance didn't start with Obama, never said it did, in fact I have continually posted that it started with the onset of managed care, HMO and PPOs and the lack of Federal regulation of private health insurance companies. And I have over and over stated my ideas on other health care threads and don't intend to repeat them here. You wake up and educate yourself on the PPACA and the problems it has created and the problems it has lacked to correct as promised. You haven't posted anything factual to convince me otherwise. Do you actually have any ideas?
Already stated my ideas here and on many other "health care" threads. Do you have any ideas as to why premiums have gone up for those not eligible for subsidies and why the insurance those given a subsidy through the exchange is fully transparent and doesn't cover the majority of physicians and hospitals in the insureds vicinity and often refuse to pay for care they advised the insured and their provider would be covered and later denied? You don't know what you are talking about because you aren't in the medical care business. Are you?
Premiums have gone up every year before and after the ACA. New medicines, new treatment options, inflation, obesity, etc. what part of living in the real world don't you understand. There are only a few ways costs will ever go,down. 1) move medical duties that really don't require a physician to nurse practitioner or comperable. 2) lower administrative cost or admimistrative profit. In other words single payer 3) remove corruption 4) ration care either on the basis of ability to pay. 5) or ration care by a lifetime cap on benefits or on probability of cure 6) legalize physician assisted suicide.
1. already happening, they delegate many things to their nursing or med tech staff. But most are reluctant to delegate those things that could have negative consequences to the patient if not performed correctly. After all, no matter what, the physician is responsible for all care rendered and it should be their choice of what they are willing to delegate to another office member. 4 and 5 will already happen once the "medical advisory board" kicks in 6. wow, most doctors and surgeons enter the profession to save lives, using every last means , unfortunately, their hands are often tied by the FDA. New drugs, new surgical procedures and modes of medical care that are approved for use in the UK and perhaps Canada are left in the FDA's hands. Remember AIDS and Cancer treatments held up by the FDA. "New medicines, new treatment options, inflation, obesity, etc. what part of living in the real world don't you understand". Have no idea what you are refencing as I have mentioned all of these play a part in the cost of "providing" medical care. What part of this extremely elaborate Federal government system do you not understand?
