Earn $1000, pay $2000!
-
Shocking! Taken from Melvin Tan's blog http://melvintansg.blogspot.com/:
09 August 2007
Care versus cost - lopsided?
Yesterday, a day before the National Day holiday, I had some drinks with a couple of friends.
One of them, presently sourcing for a nursing home to place his semi-mobile father in, learnt that the costs of doing so could run up to more than $2,000 per month and lamented the high fees charged by such homes.
Only in the event where a family has an average income of $1,000 and below per member, the government will subsidise 80% of the costs.
To me, it odd to expect a family with an average income of, say, $1,100 per member, to fork out expenses of about $2,000 per month if they had to opt for the assistance of a nursing home.
Having to deal with expenses that outstrip their earnings is an impossible feat for any family even if they could do the impossible of not spending a single cent of their income.
In my view, the income ceiling to qualify for this subsidy should be at least $3,000 or more instead of $1,000.
My friend and his other siblings had no problem with the costs but he wondered about the plight of less well-off families who, if under inevitable circumstances like his own, have to put a family member in a nursing home as last resort.
For their case, it is not their desire to leave their father in a home but they do not have much of a choice as their mother is also semi-mobile and they were worried their maid will be unable to handle both.
How will poorer families under the same situation, except being unable to afford a maid or hospice costs, cope?
Another topic discussed was means testing, a policy idea introduced by the PAP (with several u-turns on the implementation deadline) that the Workers' Party was concerned with and became one of the mentioned topics during the General Election in 2006.
We wondered why government hospitals had to institute means testing when they can maintain C Class wards while reducing or abolishing A and B Class wards, leaving it to the private hospitals to run the latter classes of wards?
The two reasons we could think of is, firstly, to give the world the perception that Singaporeans are generally well-off for the government to have high-class hospitals and secondly, the usual engrossment with surplus at the people's expense.
Today, on Singapore's 42nd birthday, let us reflect on the society the country will have in the near and distant future.
A new video by activist-filmmaker Martyn See lends a lesser-seen insight. -
Well this sort of problems have existed in Singapore for a long time.
Put it simply, "the rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer."
What the Government do now only benefit the rich and less on the poor.
Until now I still cannot comprehend how the 7%GST is going to benefit the poor. More like the $ goes into their own pockets in a 'legal' way thru their self-imposed yet undeserved high pays. -
Yes, this government will help you - only if you help yourself first.
Even if the government is to provide help - with subsidies - how certain are we that the costs have not been inflated, and the subsidy is non-existent, and the actual amounts to be paid by us, will actually be the original amount of the cost ?
Is it any surprise that with all the various ''subsidies'' that the government has dished out, it will find itself continuously with positive surplus annually ?
The budget that is announced at the beginning of each Financial Year is a balanced budget, yet with each passing year the Government Treasury is bloated with Annual Surplus that throw the balanced budget out of gear - except for the recession years.
Is it any surprise that we see the scholarships dished out by the government annually that are self-serving not to help the brilliant to advance, but to lock talents into their own service ?
MM LKY had just recently voiced his observation that more rich families prefer to send their children on family funded programs than to accept government scholarships with strings attached.
What does this speak of the Government Policies - even on the mundane issue of funding brilliant students - let alone the expectation for the government to help with cash-outlays to help the old, aged and infirmed, who are no longer of any economic benefit to the Government ? -
If the information is correct, then the people who set the family membersÂ’ income limit that disqualifies a patient for a subsidy are weak in maths.
-
i think they are all blinded by the lies... there's no one in need of help. there are no destitutes on the streets......and many many moreOriginally posted by googoomuck:If the information is correct, then the people who set the family membersÂ’ income limit that disqualifies a patient for a subsidy are weak in maths.
-
I think the maths is $1000 per son, not the entire household, including the senior citizen. The maths is not wrong.Originally posted by googoomuck:If the information is correct, then the people who set the family membersÂ’ income limit that disqualifies a patient for a subsidy are weak in maths. -
But what if the patient with no income has only one other member in the household who earns $1,100?Originally posted by Mat Toro:I think the maths is $1000 per son, not the entire household, including the senior citizen. The maths is not wrong.
Would the patient be qualified for subsidy? -
its obvious. we have more than US100 billion in reserves.
why do we need to increase the gst to help the poor?
a small percentage of the reserves alone is enough to help them, if the govt are serious about helping. -
We need to increase gst, so the 100billion in reserves can stay as it is.
-
And to keep it for future useOriginally posted by ditzy:We need to increase gst, so the 100billion in reserves can stay as it is. -
Thats would make it $550 per household, then he will qualify and govt will subsidise 80% It makes perfect sense. .Originally posted by googoomuck:But what if the patient with no income has only one other member in the household who earns $1,100?
Would the patient be qualified for subsidy? -
Are you sure or just "think"?Originally posted by Mat Toro:I think the maths is $1000 per son, not the entire household, including the senior citizen. The maths is not wrong.
-
the reserves are meant to grow not just stayOriginally posted by ditzy:We need to increase gst, so the 100billion in reserves can stay as it is. -
why can't you just read the thread?Originally posted by royston_ang:Are you sure or just "think"? -
I believe the whole idea about the income ceiling is to discourage Singaporeans from dumping their old and useless parents into such nursing home
-
the whole problem is, people don't read and don't think.
they just want to throw their parents to others to take care and have other tax payers pay for it. -
just a thought....but how we noe if the $100billion is still there???Originally posted by ditzy:We need to increase gst, so the 100billion in reserves can stay as it is. -
If it's not there, something will go up.Originally posted by sg mata:just a thought....but how we noe if the $100billion is still there??? -
if its not there, we will change govt.