Sg cabbie & US surgeon
-
u think health cost here high.read this
sg complained health cost is damn high.read how a US surgeon write:
ISSUE: JULY, 2006 | VOLUME: 33:07
''Singapore Cabbie''by David V. Cossman MDAs we exited the parkway and stopped at a red light, the cabbie opened his window and pointed to a three-storied light green building with a red neon caduceus flashing over the entrance.
--- Dr. Cossman is the medical director of the vascular laboratory, the director of vascular trauma and the director of resident education in vascular surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. He has been in private practice for 29 years at Vascular Surgery Associates, performing vascular surgery exclusively.
"You can get a great hernia repair in there for $390," he said.
I was stunned. ......
"Three hundred ninety dollars out the door, tax and license? No ups, no extras?" I asked. Obviously, being an American, even as a doctor, I was unprepared to have an adult discussion about the cost of a surgical procedure in such stark economic terms.
I gave the cabbie a big tip and got up to my room as soon as I could to find out more about Singapore health on my laptop. The cabbie had it about right. The state of healthcare in Singapore by all the usual measurable parameters (per capita doctors, per capita hospital beds, admissions per 100,000 people, frequency of CTs and MRIs, life expectancy and infant mortality) was excellent.
Comparing Singapore healthcare with ours was starting to look like Singapore Airlines versus US Airways—which is fine if you like flying 1985 Plymouths. But here's the kicker. The price tag for all this is is only 3.8% of GDP, compared to versus 15% in the United States. Even more remarkable, government spending on healthcare is less than one-third of the total, whereas here it is more than half. Actually, it's a lot more than half if you add up Medicare, Medicaid and the enormous tax subsidy of employer-sponsored insurance. Somehow, the private markets for healthcare are working in Singapore but not here, which is odd because the United States is the recognized world leader in markets and the efficient use of capital.
2.never mind this doc mentioned by PAP guy
we are here to get the fact straight.
health sys here not perfect,still can be improved.
if u say very bad,then pl tell me which country ON THE ALL
is better. -
Some forumners expect healthcare to be as cheap as that in Malaysia, of a standard as high as in the US but waiting times as short as...eh...better than Singapore
-
If it is truly cheaper,
don't complain next time you walk into a healthcare facility ok.
The service of health professionals are good enough (though not good enough for some pain in the asses).
The cost is kept down because the junior doctors are working their butts of in the public hospitals taking care of far more patients than they can handle.
So do the nurses, imagine taking care of every aspect of the patient needs. this can be very taxing esp when you have to handle or sorts of related admin stuff like dealing with problematic relatives and some very fucked up drs.
Mind you. The nurse patient ratio here is 1:12 and 1:20 on night shifts ok.
Imagine doing everything for an immobile patient including washing up and turning him every 2 hours plus round the clock surveliance and medication therapy as well as performing various treatments when his condition deteroriates. Imagine this times 20. And the pay sucks.
So you know what job to take on to get a taste of hell. -
Every year, we recruit about 130 doctors who graduated overseas.
A medical specialist takes years to train. The increased intake in the NUS Medical Faculty this year will only benefit the patients in 2015 or beyond. We cannot wait. So we must top up with foreign recruitment. Every year, we recruit about 130 doctors who graduated overseas. Singaporeans have benefited from these foreign doctors.
--
Let me just quote three examples who were recruited in the last 10 years or so and who went on to head our clinical departments. SGH recruited Dr Colin Song from South Africa. He is now the Head of SGH's Plastic and Reconstruction Surgery, doing an excellent job treating burns and cancer patients and mentoring younger plastic surgeons. NUH recruited Prof Peter Manning from UK. He was until recently the head of NUH's Emergency Medicine Department, and has also become a Singapore citizen.
NUH also recruited Prof Wang Shih Chang from Australia. He now heads its Diagnostic Imaging Department. There are many more such examples who are doing excellent work serving our patients. And more are welcome. We are expanding the schedule of recognised medical degrees. We will step up foreign recruitment.
Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore Groundbreaking Dinner.
01 Sep 2006
By Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Health
Venue: College of Medicine Building -
Aye don't compare too much!
Good health is priceless.
If you don't want to incur what you perceive as absurdly-high medical bills, then take good care of your health so you don't fall sick too easily.
As Da Chang Jin says, the best medicine is "not to fall sick". -
Yes, very true. In fact our own Health Minister once said on national TV, "Ay sai si, buay sai pua bair".Originally posted by MooKu:Aye don't compare too much!
Good health is priceless.
If you don't want to incur what you perceive as absurdly-high medical bills, then take good care of your health so you don't fall sick too easily.
As Da Chang Jin says, the best medicine is "not to fall sick". -
The good surgeon from the USA must be "nuts" to base his judgment on a billboard advertising : "You can get a great hernia repair in there for $390," - that he found on top of a "three-storied light green building with a red neon caduceus flashing over the entrance . "
Surely, he will know that advertisement is just the tip of the ice-berg ?
What will his comments be if he had read the news articles about that poor Myanmar lady, who was sued by Parkway Medical for a sum of $250,000 for her mother's medical treatment that was supposed to have been a simple angio-plas operation that went awry, and required her mother to stay on for nearly a whole year in the hospital.
Ask any Singaporean who have had a major by-pass surgery, and he will advise you of a bill of at least $90,000 or more; or a simple cataract removal that cost $2500 to have the operation performed by the Head of the Department - whose service is not subsidised; and then there are the after-surgery services, which will cost at least $100 per visit without medication.
Even with subsidy from the Government, it still will require an out-of-pocket payment in CASH of at least 30% of the main hospital bill.
What does this suggest ?
Could the bills have been inflated, and the subsidy is merely paper transfer of funds, with the actual amount being the CASH component payable by Singaporean patients ?
Is this not the familiar accounting methods used in Public Housing ?
The smugness of some Singaporean Doctors - believing in their own superlative quality - will only surely make Singapore less competitive in medical services, when alternative places slowly build up their reputation in Medical Skills and Standards.
As matters stand now, the Singapore Health Ministry has begun to recognised medical degrees from Third World Countries that were once look upon with doubt and dismay. -
i am not really familiar with how a hospital stay is charge. I cant comment as i have never exp a major illness. The only thing i dont understand is that why are the medicine tax.
-
Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore Groundbreaking Dinner.
01 Sep 2006
By Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Health
Venue: College of Medicine Building>
oh yes, we should be very grateful to the gov for bringing in the ft to keep our healthcare low! -
An interesting article by the Minister of Health:
LAST week, I met Health Minister Gao Qiang in Beijing. We chit-chatted and shared our experiences. We both knew that it is tough being a health minister.
This is because patients expect us to do magic. They expect us to deliver a very high standard of medical service but at a very low cost, preferably free. These objectives are almost contradictory. How can we deliver First World health care at Third World costs?
Early this week, I read a newspaper article (ST, Aug 4) which quoted Indian Tourism Minister Ambika Soni as saying that India offers 'the best treatment for one-fifth of the cost (in the West)'. For example, bone marrow transplants cost US$30,000 (S$47,000) in India as compared with US$250,000 in the US. Likewise, cardiac surgery in India costs a quarter of that in the US.
But hospitals offering US standards of care are rare exceptions in India.
The bulk of health care in India remains at Third World level. Hence, it is possible for a few hospitals to offer US standards of care while leveraging on the large number of health-care workers who remain on Third World wages.
The challenge is to keep wages and costs at Third World levels while the rest of the health-care system moves to First World standards. It is almost impossible.
With globalisation, the wages of health-care workers as well as the prices of medical products are converging. Cross-border migration of health-care workers is now common. For a small country like Singapore, we import most of our medical products, like drugs and X-ray equipment. We have to pay international prices for these imports.
With people living longer and mothers producing fewer babies, uncontrollable healthcare costs can potentially wreck our finances, not to mention create major political problems.
Singapore is fortunate that our founding fathers were successful in developing the economy. With clean water, clean air and good sanitation, the health of our people has improved over the years. We now enjoy high life expectancy and very low infant mortality rates.
Our [health-care] system today is not perfect but it is not bad. WHO has rated our system as among the top 10 most cost-effective in the world.
Today, we spend only 4 per cent of our GDP on health. The average public hospital bill size for the unsubsidised Class A ward is about one month of the average salary. In the heavily subsidised Class C ward, the average bill ($786) is less than a week of salary.
For the high standard of medical care that hospitals provide, we think this is very good value for money.
Five aspects of managing a health-care system
First, we work on the basis that health-care cost will continue to rise. While we do our best to manage medical inflation, we know that the trend is rising. The reason is simple. Doctors and nurses will continue to command high salaries and advances in medical science will continue to churn out new drugs and new equipment which are more expensive than their replacements.
The key to managing health-care cost is therefore to ensure that there is a constant and expanding flow of money going into the health-care sector to pay for new services. There is no short cut to this problem.
We are more likely to succeed if we share the financial burden widely. If we load the burden on one payer - whether the government as in the British system, or the employers like the American system - we will cause very severe strains. In Singapore, we involve both the Government as well as employers, and in addition, we rope in patients and their families as well. Our health-care system is supported by all the major stakeholders: Government, employers, patients, family members, insurers and charities.
Second, we believe that the health-care market can work better under competition. Market competition is the best way to allocate resources efficiently. Compared to other economic sectors, the health-care sector is notoriously unproductive. But there is no fundamental reason why the health-care market must fail. It fails only because we allow it to fail.
For markets to function, there must be timely information so consumers and producers can make rational decisions. When we want to buy a mobile phone, we shop around for the best prices for the functions that we desire. But how many patients shop around before they go for their cataract eye operation or knee cap replacement? And how can they shop around when information on how much patients pay for such operations is not easily available?
In Singapore, we are trying to push out timely and relevant information. We gather data from our hospitals and publish them regularly.
Third, we must empower patients and get them to take greater responsibility for their own health. This is particular so in the management of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. If we manage chronic diseases well, we are more likely to avoid or at least delay or minimise the onset of future medical complications requiring costly treatment.
Patients should take responsibility for their own health and work with their doctors and change their lifestyle. Eat healthily, exercise regularly, avoid obesity and smoking, take medication as prescribed by their doctors while regularly monitoring their own health and looking out for signs of complications. Many pilot studies of such structured disease management programmes have shown the benefits to the health of patients, while saving them money.
Fourth, we must revive the important role played by the primary health-care sector. In many countries, this sector has been marginalised as patients and doctors flock to the more glamorous tertiary sector. An over-swing to the tertiary sector has been a major contributor to escalating health-care costs in many countries, without any corresponding improvement in health outcomes.
As a rule, we need to keep patients away from unnecessary care by specialists at expensive hospitals. When a patient who can be adequately treated by a GP is instead managed by a specialist in a tertiary hospital, it means a waste and abuse of expertise.
Often, financial incentives and remunerations for the doctors work against the right siting of care.
When insurers reward high-intensity, high-cost surgical treatment but do not reimburse GPs who provide low-intensity, low-cost health education and dietary advice to their chronic sick patients, we should not be surprised that the outcome is disappointing.
Fifth, we should exploit globalisation to help lower cost. While globalisation is itself pushing up wages of health workers, we should leverage on it to average down our cost.
(Straits Times, 9 Sept) -
Thailand is better. its late, 5am already, i don't want to type a long post.
-
yes, of course, the 50 baht cures all thingy .....Originally posted by pinkish purple papayas:Thailand is better. its late, 5am already, i don't want to type a long post.
but have you ever been to the poor's ward of a Thai Hospital before ? .... -
It is very easy to simply take shelter behind a Minister, and take his word as 'Biblical Truth'.
However, if we were to keep an open mind, and be critical in thought - perhaps a simple picture may have been oversimplified for political consumption.
If this is not a speech made by one who is out of touch with reality - can it possibly be from the mouth of the PRC Minister of Health ?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:An interesting article by the Minister of Health:
LAST week, I met Health Minister Gao Qiang in Beijing. We chit-chatted and shared our experiences. We both knew that it is tough being a health minister.
This is because patients expect us to do magic. They expect us to deliver a very high standard of medical service but at a very low cost, preferably free. These objectives are almost contradictory. How can we deliver First World health care at Third World costs?
Has the People's Republic of China ever inmodestly referred themselves to the status of being a 'First World Country' ?
If it is not possible for China to make such an inmodest claim - the only other person in that conversation could only be our Singapore Health Minister - quoting the unbelievable claim of his Mentor.
What could possibly be the reason for such a high profile publication be made in the Singapore's national paper to this off-the-cuff 'chit-chat' ?
Has similar publicity been given to this 'chit-char' by the PRC side in their National Paper ?
Is this local publicity in Singapore - an exercise to simply justify the charges of Singapore's Health Services ?
In the first place, does our Health Minister truly believe that Singapore is anywhere a 'First World Country' - in politics, economics, education, health ?
If this is not an indication of the greed of those who are supposed to commit themselves to the oath of helping the sick and less fortunate ?
Early this week, I read a newspaper article (ST, Aug 4) which quoted Indian Tourism Minister Ambika Soni as saying that India offers 'the best treatment for one-fifth of the cost (in the West)'. For example, bone marrow transplants cost US$30,000 (S$47,000) in India as compared with US$250,000 in the US. Likewise, cardiac surgery in India costs a quarter of that in the US.
Could the 'Cost of Living' in India justify the cost of a marrow transplant to cost US$30,000 ?
What costing benchmark has been used in considering this cost for such an operation in India ?
The material, environmental, and circumstantial costs by the Standards of India, or by the Standards of USA ?
What will be the cost of such an operation in the People's Republic of China ?
Can we believe that in 'low costs' India, a 'bone marrow transplant' operation will cost an atrocious sum of US$30,000 ?
But hospitals offering US standards of care are rare exceptions in India.
The bulk of health care in India remains at Third World level. Hence, it is possible for a few hospitals to offer US standards of care while leveraging on the large number of health-care workers who remain on Third World wages.
Is this attributeable to human greed ?
The basis of costing for an urbanised, highly developed small island country such as Singapore is unlike that of a large land mass country such as India, which is still rural.
The challenge is to keep wages and costs at Third World levels while the rest of the health-care system moves to First World standards. It is almost impossible.
With globalisation, the wages of health-care workers as well as the prices of medical products are converging. Cross-border migration of health-care workers is now common. For a small country like Singapore, we import most of our medical products, like drugs and X-ray equipment. We have to pay international prices for these imports.
In Singapore, the cost of land, wages, cost of utilities and essential services are all fixxed and determined by the State - (the Government of Singapore and/or the Elite Leadership.
Are these costs determined by market forces of Supply and Demand ? -
continue :
Is this the reason for the higher cost so as to cover the lesser usage from a smaller population ?
With people living longer and mothers producing fewer babies, uncontrollable healthcare costs can potentially wreck our finances, not to mention create major political problems.
Is this not a Classic Case of the State planning hospital capacity based on some pre-determinded economies of scale, and the planned services not being consumed; hence, resulting in the increases to billing rates for all medical and hospital services so as to achieve breakeven ?
Singapore is fortunate to have the British as our Colonial Rulers, as they had set up a strong and efficient administrative foundation and visionary infrastructure for Singapore's future.
Singapore is fortunate that our founding fathers were successful in developing the economy. With clean water, clean air and good sanitation, the health of our people has improved over the years. We now enjoy high life expectancy and very low infant mortality rates.
This had certainly allowed our founding fathers to concentrate on the Economy in a lassier fare environment that allowed a free economy to thrive and grow unhindered - guided by true market forces.
A heavily subsidised bill for Class C ward at $786 ?
Our [health-care] system today is not perfect but it is not bad. WHO has rated our system as among the top 10 most cost-effective in the world.
Today, we spend only 4 per cent of our GDP on health. The average public hospital bill size for the unsubsidised Class A ward is about one month of the average salary. In the heavily subsidised Class C ward, the average bill ($786) is less than a week of salary.
Will the amount of $786 be less than a week of salary ?
The Minister of Health must be referring to his own weekly salary, and not that of a Singaporean from the Lower Income Group that form the bulk of Singaporeans in the Class C ward.
Whose 'value standard' is used to determine a sense of 'good value for money' - the 'value standard' of the MILLION DOLLAR salary of the Minister, or based on the typical Lower Income - {or Lower and Upper Middle Income } - Singaporean wage earner ?
For the high standard of medical care that hospitals provide, we think this is very good value for money.
Is it any fairer when the sharing of the financial burden is based on an opaque cost accounting system which Singaporeans have no access to ?
Five aspects of managing a health-care system
First, we work on the basis that health-care cost will continue to rise. While we do our best to manage medical inflation, we know that the trend is rising. The reason is simple. Doctors and nurses will continue to command high salaries and advances in medical science will continue to churn out new drugs and new equipment which are more expensive than their replacements.
The key to managing health-care cost is therefore to ensure that there is a constant and expanding flow of money going into the health-care sector to pay for new services. There is no short cut to this problem.
We are more likely to succeed if we share the financial burden widely. If we load the burden on one payer - whether the government as in the British system, or the employers like the American system - we will cause very severe strains. In Singapore, we involve both the Government as well as employers, and in addition, we rope in patients and their families as well. Our health-care system is supported by all the major stakeholders: Government, employers, patients, family members, insurers and charities.
When will the bubble burst if costs continue to rise ?
Will the day come when costs will reach the levels that currency has to be dealt with in six-digits ?
Unfortunately, in Singapore, while lip service is given to the term 'market competition' - such equilibrium of market forces is always thwarted when it does not meet with Government goals.
Second, we believe that the health-care market can work better under competition. Market competition is the best way to allocate resources efficiently. Compared to other economic sectors, the health-care sector is notoriously unproductive. But there is no fundamental reason why the health-care market must fail. It fails only because we allow it to fail.
For markets to function, there must be timely information so consumers and producers can make rational decisions. When we want to buy a mobile phone, we shop around for the best prices for the functions that we desire. But how many patients shop around before they go for their cataract eye operation or knee cap replacement? And how can they shop around when information on how much patients pay for such operations is not easily available?
In Singapore, we are trying to push out timely and relevant information. We gather data from our hospitals and publish them regularly. -
continue:
Can those Singaporeans in the Lower Income, and those in the Lower or Upper Middle Income - have the luxury of time and money to enjoy such empowerment to look after our own health ?
Third, we must empower patients and get them to take greater responsibility for their own health. This is particular so in the management of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. If we manage chronic diseases well, we are more likely to avoid or at least delay or minimise the onset of future medical complications requiring costly treatment.
Patients should take responsibility for their own health and work with their doctors and change their lifestyle. Eat healthily, exercise regularly, avoid obesity and smoking, take medication as prescribed by their doctors while regularly monitoring their own health and looking out for signs of complications. Many pilot studies of such structured disease management programmes have shown the benefits to the health of patients, while saving them money.
Many Singaporeans in these income groups have to take on double occupation just to make ends meet and with enough to see to the education of their children in a highly competitive school system.
In a population of 4.5 Million, what is the numbers in the Lower Income, Lower or Upper Middle Income, and the Higher Income Groups ?
If we were to look at the incident rates of 'First World Health Problems' - there will be a higher percentage from those in the Higher Income and Upper Middle Income; and a lower incident rate found in the Lower Middle Income Group.
Chances are that 'Third World Health Problems' will continue to be found in the Lower Income group - with such diseases being 'tuberculosis, poor dietic diseases, malnutrition, veneral diseases, cancer due to heavy smoking.
The 'First World Health Problems' are more exotic - ranging from diabetese to heart and liver conditions due to over rich diet - euphemistically classified as the 'Rich Man's Diseases'.
When a Health or Medical Insurance scheme is managed by a 'profit orientated' entity, the obvious outcome to be expected is a reluctance to pay out; and after payment is made, it is very likely that the insurers will balk at continuing with a person who will straddle them for the remaining life span.
Fourth, we must revive the important role played by the primary health-care sector. In many countries, this sector has been marginalised as patients and doctors flock to the more glamorous tertiary sector. An over-swing to the tertiary sector has been a major contributor to escalating health-care costs in many countries, without any corresponding improvement in health outcomes.
As a rule, we need to keep patients away from unnecessary care by specialists at expensive hospitals. When a patient who can be adequately treated by a GP is instead managed by a specialist in a tertiary hospital, it means a waste and abuse of expertise.
Often, financial incentives and remunerations for the doctors work against the right siting of care.
When insurers reward high-intensity, high-cost surgical treatment but do not reimburse GPs who provide low-intensity, low-cost health education and dietary advice to their chronic sick patients, we should not be surprised that the outcome is disappointing.
Globalisation is another term for 'economies of scale' by sharing costs and capacities at a global level.
Fifth, we should exploit globalisation to help lower cost. While globalisation is itself pushing up wages of health workers, we should leverage on it to average down our cost.
(Straits Times, 9 Sept)
Leveraging on what others can do better and cheaper was supposed to be the secret of Singapore's economic success since the 1960s, when we decided to move away from Primary Industries - in animal and vegetable farming to concentrate in building our wealth through our human resources and talent - { 'it is surprising that we were more talented in the 1960s' } - by going into manufacturing and other services.
Beyond all the above, the fact remains that we will be chasing a vicious circle of cost increments, if the limited financial resources of each individual Singaporean is to be depended on to meet our individual medical and healthcare costs.
The Government will always be needed to invest in the provision of all infrastructure - whether economic, education or health - and such costs will always be recovered from the Citizens who will have to pay a fee to utilise such services.
For Singaporeans - in the Lower Income, Lower and Upper Middle Income Groups, while consumption of normal economic services can be met from a portion of the daily or monthly wages, larger capital outlay will consume the bulk of the wage, with little left for savings to look after ourselves in the later life.
The best way will be for a National Insurance scheme paid by the State - which can be funded from the profits generated by investing our Reserves; and/or from the surplus of taxes collected from the Citizens.
Multiple combination of such a scheme can be developed for a National Insurance that is to be owned by Singapore Citizens, in which the funds accumulated in this National Insurance will be professionally managed to grow annual surplus returned to this fund - which will be used to pay for all the medical and health care expenses in Secondary or Tertiary Costs. -
funny. UK's medical system charges me no $ at all. And the same day the clinic i go to says i need an x-ray, the same day im sent for the X-ray. In busy London, at the UCH, I only needed to wait about 10 mins before my turn was called. The entire process was quick. I got there about 3, by 3.30 i was done. I've not even experienced such quick service in Singapore's horribly expensive hospitals, whether private or public. My medical appointments often take over 2 hours to complete.
I also requested for 2 appointments for ultrasounds and blood testing last week. By today, I've received my appointments. Better yet, although I'd requested it for 3 months away, they were able to give me a slot thats only a month and a half away. And all for free, and I'm not even a citizen of their country.
Honestly, Singapore always wants to compare itself with worse cases. Isn't the impetus for ever constant improvement thru comparing oneself with better examples instead of worse ones?
Now I wonder those Singaporeans who often put the british system down to extol Singapore's systems aren't just trying to delude themselves for the need of improvement too. Maybe too many Singaporeans are growing complacent, and in turn, becoming blind. Or maybe some people just feel the need to praise the govt no matter what
-
Well you have a point; they're quick to label themselves World Class, Medical Hub, or Hub this Hub that, but no where near the perfomance of these labels when in actual operation.Originally posted by HENG@:funny. UK's medical system charges me no $ at all. And the same day the clinic i go to says i need an x-ray, the same day im sent for the X-ray. In busy London, at the UCH, I only needed to wait about 10 mins before my turn was called. The entire process was quick. I got there about 3, by 3.30 i was done. I've not even experienced such quick service in Singapore's horribly expensive hospitals, whether private or public. My medical appointments often take over 2 hours to complete.
I also requested for 2 appointments for ultrasounds and blood testing last week. By today, I've received my appointments. Better yet, although I'd requested it for 3 months away, they were able to give me a slot thats only a month and a half away. And all for free, and I'm not even a citizen of their country.
Honestly, Singapore always wants to compare itself with worse cases. Isn't the impetus for ever constant improvement thru comparing oneself with better examples instead of worse ones?
Now I wonder those Singaporeans who often put the british system down to extol Singapore's systems aren't just trying to delude themselves for the need of improvement too. Maybe too many Singaporeans are growing complacent, and in turn, becoming blind. Or maybe some people just feel the need to praise the govt no matter what
Of course they'll take the worst scenarios to make comparisons - just like they only allow for very weak oppositions to exist while kicking out all the more potentially capable ones. -
Originally posted by ShutterBug:Well you have a point; they're quick to label themselves World Class, Medical Hub, or Hub this Hub that, but no where near the perfomance of these labels when in actual operation.
Of course they'll take the worst scenarios to make comparisons - just like they only allow for very weak oppositions to exist while kicking out all the more potentially capable ones.
now we can expect a few of those ball carriers to come in and play, reply indignantly etc
i dun need to name nicks lah right? we all know who they are
-
i also wonder about the threadstarter's intentions in starting this thread. so what are we supposed to do? cheer? be happy that we're better than USA, nevermind potentially still lagging behind even better systems? why not compare ourselves to africa? im sure can be even happier. whats the point of this thread? to prove we don't need to improve anymore? or to show some people's blind complacency?
honestly wads the purpose of this thread? -
U gotta be kidding to say that there no need for them to improve on healthcare.Originally posted by HENG@:i also wonder about the threadstarter's intentions in starting this thread. so what are we supposed to do? cheer? be happy that we're better than USA, nevermind potentially still lagging behind even better systems? why not compare ourselves to africa? im sure can be even happier. whats the point of this thread? to prove we don't need to improve anymore? or to show some people's blind complacency?
honestly wads the purpose of this thread?
They keep telling us all to upgrade ourselves, adopt lifelong learning and all that jazz, keep improving ourselves - run faster so to speak.
Well, it's time THEY improve themselves too! Buck up on healthcare! Make it SENSIBLE instead of that God damn STUPID $400 per year Medsiave scheme!
And review the ever POINTLESS CPF policies too! As far as I'm concern, this one is truly LPPL!! -
dun u know? it's a set of rules for us, another set for those in charge?Originally posted by ShutterBug:U gotta be kidding to say that there no need for them to improve on healthcare.
They keep telling us all to upgrade ourselves, adopt lifelong learning and all that jazz, keep improving ourselves - run faster so to speak.
Well, it's time THEY improve themselves too! Buck up on healthcare! Make it SENSIBLE instead of that God damn STUPID $400 per year Medsiave scheme!
And review the ever POINTLESS CPF policies too! As far as I'm concern, this one is truly LPPL!! -
R u sure??? according 2 a self proclaimed Doc in this thread ,Sporean spent the least waiting time in the world for a medical consulation.Originally posted by HENG@:funny. UK's medical system charges me no $ at all. And the same day the clinic i go to says i need an x-ray, the same day im sent for the X-ray. In busy London, at the UCH, I only needed to wait about 10 mins before my turn was called. The entire process was quick. I got there about 3, by 3.30 i was done. I've not even experienced such quick service in Singapore's horribly expensive hospitals, whether private or public. My medical appointments often take over 2 hours to complete.
I also requested for 2 appointments for ultrasounds and blood testing last week. By today, I've received my appointments. Better yet, although I'd requested it for 3 months away, they were able to give me a slot thats only a month and a half away. And all for free, and I'm not even a citizen of their country.
Honestly, Singapore always wants to compare itself with worse cases. Isn't the impetus for ever constant improvement thru comparing oneself with better examples instead of worse ones?
Now I wonder those Singaporeans who often put the british system down to extol Singapore's systems aren't just trying to delude themselves for the need of improvement too. Maybe too many Singaporeans are growing complacent, and in turn, becoming blind. Or maybe some people just feel the need to praise the govt no matter what
But.I agreed with u that I had spent 2 n half hours for a medical consultation in a poly clinic in Spore when I returned here a month ago.
With about 200,000 overseas Sporean,these Dogs r still want to bluff ard and not compare apple with apple. My poor sporean!!! -
Wow...is the NHS that good? I studied in London for 3 years but never fell sick enough there to have to see a doctor, so I wouldn't know. But when I read their newspapers I always got some horror stories regarding their public services e.g. NHS, National Rail, so your experience is really a surprise to me.Originally posted by HENG@:funny. UK's medical system charges me no $ at all. And the same day the clinic i go to says i need an x-ray, the same day im sent for the X-ray. In busy London, at the UCH, I only needed to wait about 10 mins before my turn was called. The entire process was quick. I got there about 3, by 3.30 i was done. I've not even experienced such quick service in Singapore's horribly expensive hospitals, whether private or public. My medical appointments often take over 2 hours to complete.
I also requested for 2 appointments for ultrasounds and blood testing last week. By today, I've received my appointments. Better yet, although I'd requested it for 3 months away, they were able to give me a slot thats only a month and a half away. And all for free, and I'm not even a citizen of their country.
Honestly, Singapore always wants to compare itself with worse cases. Isn't the impetus for ever constant improvement thru comparing oneself with better examples instead of worse ones?
Now I wonder those Singaporeans who often put the british system down to extol Singapore's systems aren't just trying to delude themselves for the need of improvement too. Maybe too many Singaporeans are growing complacent, and in turn, becoming blind. Or maybe some people just feel the need to praise the govt no matter what
As for Singapore, I go to National Skin Centre about every two months for my eczema, and the waiting time is bad alright. Also, you have to make your appointment at least a month in advance, or else you won't be able to get the slot you want. -
Everytime I went to the NSC, I had to take at least 3 hours to complete a simple appointment. And somemore have to pay $ one. I switch to private doctors, paid much more, but still took at least 2 hours to finish an appt.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Wow...is the NHS that good? I studied in London for 3 years but never fell sick enough there to have to see a doctor, so I wouldn't know. But when I read their newspapers I always got some horror stories regarding their public services e.g. NHS, National Rail, so your experience is really a surprise to me.
As for Singapore, I go to National Skin Centre about every two months for my eczema, and the waiting time is bad alright. Also, you have to make your appointment at least a month in advance, or else you won't be able to get the slot you want.
The newspapers in UK are unlike those in Sg. They're not dictated by the govt at all, so they're free to report anything they wish. Of course there are sometimes isolated cases which I've also heard of. But on the whole everytime I've needed to utilise the NHS i've been left feeling more than impressed. Sometimes it's papers like The Sun which needs something more "shocking" to sell. But at least the brits push themselves for improvement even though their system is pretty good, unlike singapore, who would rather sit on their laurels instead of improving even more. -
NSC.. kiss my ass.. most of my experience there in my NS days are the epitome of inefficiency.
I had so much better service at Raffles. And it was worth every single cent.