Interested in everyone's thoughts about the possibly of implementing a healthcare system here in America that would be similar to Singapore's. The article listed below gives an overview of how it would possibly work. Singapore Style Healthcare in America: http://www.purplepublic.com/singapore-style-healthcare-in-america.html If you take a deep dive into the world of healthcare policy wonks, from both sides of the aisle, they tend to talk about Singapore's healthcare system a lot.
Some modifications may be needed. First, the idea that the "HSA account would then earn a small amount of interest through a safe Government Securities Investment Fund" sounds like a reference to investment in Treasury securities, which the right loves to spin as "worthless IOUs". To make that work the right would need to get past their "need" to promote this distortion. But while the idea in general looks pretty good, we would need to reign in healthcare cost like out-of-control drug pricing "because we can" be greedy. Also, $10 bandaids and $5 glasses of water in hospitals must be ended. Yet the second example given in the article doesn't work for me: "If a person needs assistance for a surgical procedure or a long-term care condition such a diabetes then a National Catastrophic Health Insurance Program would kick in at an 80/20 rate. The government would cover 80% and the patient would cover 20% using their own compulsory HSA account. There would be a small monthly premium ranging from $10-$50, and a yearly deductible ranging from $1,500-$2,000 depending on age. Example: A 29 year old individual has to have an emergency appendectomy which costs $15,000. Appendectomy: $15,000 Patient Yearly Dedutible: $1,500 Government Pays 80%: $10,800 Patient Pays 20% $2,700 ================================== Total cost to Patient: $4,200 (Deductible plus the 20%) So in the above scenario, this acute catastrophic event would costs the patient $4,200 which they would pay for using their compulsory HSA account." The bill in this example is $15,000. And 80% of that is $12,000 but since the patient obligation of a $1500 deductible is not counted as being part of his cost, it is deducted from the bill first and the 80% is calculated on the balance. Thus, in this 80%-20% deal, the government pays 72% and the patient pays 28%. If it is to be called an "80-20 plan" it needs to be 80%-20%. And they spelled "deductible" wrong. heh heh heh - - - Updated - - - Some modifications may be needed. First, the idea that the "HSA account would then earn a small amount of interest through a safe Government Securities Investment Fund" sounds like a reference to investment in Treasury securities, which the right loves to spin as "worthless IOUs". To make that work the right would need to get past their "need" to promote this distortion. But while the idea in general looks pretty good, we would need to reign in healthcare cost like out-of-control drug pricing "because we can" be greedy. Also, $10 bandaids and $5 glasses of water in hospitals must be ended. Yet the second example given in the article doesn't work for me: "If a person needs assistance for a surgical procedure or a long-term care condition such a diabetes then a National Catastrophic Health Insurance Program would kick in at an 80/20 rate. The government would cover 80% and the patient would cover 20% using their own compulsory HSA account. There would be a small monthly premium ranging from $10-$50, and a yearly deductible ranging from $1,500-$2,000 depending on age. Example: A 29 year old individual has to have an emergency appendectomy which costs $15,000. Appendectomy: $15,000 Patient Yearly Dedutible: $1,500 Government Pays 80%: $10,800 Patient Pays 20% $2,700 ================================== Total cost to Patient: $4,200 (Deductible plus the 20%) So in the above scenario, this acute catastrophic event would costs the patient $4,200 which they would pay for using their compulsory HSA account." The bill in this example is $15,000. And 80% of that is $12,000 but since the patient obligation of a $1500 deductible is not counted as being part of his cost, it is deducted from the bill first and the 80% is calculated on the balance. Thus, in this 80%-20% deal, the government pays 72% and the patient pays 28%. If it is to be called an "80-20 plan" it needs to be 80%-20%. And they spelled "deductible" wrong. heh heh heh
2ยข from Singapore (SGP). From what I understand, in SGP, like UK, majority of hospitalizations are in PUBLIC hospital (80% I think)... Class C are like open wards, no air con, 8 to a room: so it is much cheaper to run but some people call this inhumane/ 3rd world (Class A pte air con rooms w attached loo (toilet) exists but the final bill may easily be 10x the same medical treatment receved in class C). Even visitors are limited due to lack of space (and infection control etc). Point is, the govt has tight control over hospitalization costs. But majority of hospitalizations in USA are private: thus even if u have compulsory hospitalizations etc savings scheme, it would be quickly depleted because USA govt has little to zero control because u almost ALL your hospitalizations are in PTE hospitals as I understand.
