Why Singapore Has the World's Best Healthcare

[Nilgiri]

A very well done analysis. @xenon5434 you will find this interesting:

 

[Xenon54]

A very well done analysis. @xenon5434 you will find this interesting:

Sounds similar to Swiss one except that we have two different kind of health insurance, one private which you pay yourself and one from employer, booth differenciate between work related injuries or and diseases.
I think the reason for singaporean healthcare being so ''cheap'' is that elder people get taken care by their children while the elder in Europe get taken care in retirement homes. Those are one of the biggest healt care costs in switzerland actually.

But US thats spends almost 20% of GDP without basic healthcare for everyone is pathetic to say the least, well at least they are not communist i guess.

 

[Nilgiri]

I think the reason for singaporean healthcare being so ''cheap'' is that elder people get taken care by their children while the elder in Europe get taken care in retirement homes. Those are one of the biggest healt care costs in switzerland actually.

It comes from Singapore model of city state (benevolent autocracy). I.e the mandatory CPF savings fund not only can be used for yourself but also for dependents (children and elders)....thus augments family conservative structure (in Asia) quite well. Video gives the breakdown on what overall medisave withdrawals look like w.r.t this.

But as video states, on purpose you cant cover anything 100% with it (i.e with medisave), so you do have to take personal responsibility w.r.t other savings too (or augment with private health plan or funds).

But US thats spends almost 20% of GDP without basic healthcare for everyone is pathetic to say the least, well at least they are not communist i guess.

US is basically a continent-economy of people in its own right. The govt over-intervenes on certain things (which takes away personal responsibility that Singapore can harness) and under-intervenes on others (where raw supply subsidy by collective pooling is needed) compared to much smaller countries.

Federal govt inevitably does even worse on achieving a better resolution on this mixture than state govt does.

Politically (federally) they do bandaid slap on programs like obamacare because its just easier politically....and devil in details can all be underlooked and kicked down the road.

When in reality they should try optimise at state level and make it completely a state level issue (and make further resolutions as needed by district w.r.t say particular cities, rural areas etc that all have different needs)....as federal govt is really stupid to handle these issues with enough resolution in such heterogeneous population of scale. A system closer to this did exist at one point till about the 60s when the big govt welfare programs commenced (and unfortunately timed with Vietnam War fiscal pressure but thats another story as to how big govt convinced itself that throwing more money/debt at some problem is the fix).

Various states do lot better than others on it to begin with, the solutions are all found there, and they inevitably involve putting in time and effort to do things at more local level as possible (like Singapore takes to a successful extreme given it inherited its city-state size to work with to begin with when it was kicked out of Malaysian federation).

With US there is also the "issuer of note/reference" effect at play (it is only country that prints USD that every other country uses as global reference. Thus a X% spending is not economically (intensity wise) the same as country that has to go through exchange rate medium for USD given their different seignioriage capacity/inertia....especially when you account for the immense amount of medical research (and patent IP payment transfers sticking to USD sticker price) the US does compared to rest of the world that it bills local population with greater ease (since they earn/consume directly USD). Its fountainhead pressure that is underlooked somewhat in macroeconomic comparisons. I myself have not looked into it too much...and unsure if anyone really has.

@VCheng

 

[Xenon54]

But as video states, on purpose you cant cover anything 100% with it (i.e with medisave), so you do have to take personal responsibility w.r.t other savings too (or augment with private health plan or funds).

The same here, you do pay the first 300-2000 Chf depending on your plan, rest is paid by insurance, whetner 1 or 1 million Chf.

 

[VCheng]

It comes from Singapore model of city state (benevolent autocracy). I.e the mandatory CPF savings fund not only can be used for yourself but also for dependents (children and elders)....thus augments family conservative structure (in Asia) quite well. Video gives the breakdown on what overall medisave withdrawals look like w.r.t this.

But as video states, on purpose you cant cover anything 100% with it (i.e with medisave), so you do have to take personal responsibility w.r.t other savings too (or augment with private health plan or funds).



US is basically a continent-economy of people in its own right. The govt over-intervenes on certain things (which takes away personal responsibility that Singapore can harness) and under-intervenes on others (where raw supply subsidy by collective pooling is needed) compared to much smaller countries.

Federal govt inevitably does even worse on achieving a better resolution on this mixture than state govt does.

Politically (federally) they do bandaid slap on programs like obamacare because its just easier politically....and devil in details can all be underlooked and kicked down the road.

When in reality they should try optimise at state level and make it completely a state level issue (and make further resolutions as needed by district w.r.t say particular cities, rural areas etc that all have different needs)....as federal govt is really stupid to handle these issues with enough resolution in such heterogeneous population of scale. A system closer to this did exist at one point till about the 60s when the big govt welfare programs commenced (and unfortunately timed with Vietnam War fiscal pressure but thats another story as to how big govt convinced itself that throwing more money/debt at some problem is the fix).

Various states do lot better than others on it to begin with, the solutions are all found there, and they inevitably involve putting in time and effort to do things at more local level as possible (like Singapore takes to a successful extreme given it inherited its city-state size to work with to begin with when it was kicked out of Malaysian federation).

With US there is also the "issuer of note/reference" effect at play (it is only country that prints USD that every other country uses as global reference. Thus a X% spending is not economically (intensity wise) the same as country that has to go through exchange rate medium for USD given their different seignioriage capacity/inertia....especially when you account for the immense amount of medical research (and patent IP payment transfers sticking to USD sticker price) the US does compared to rest of the world that it bills local population with greater ease (since they earn/consume directly USD). Its fountainhead pressure that is underlooked somewhat in macroeconomic comparisons. I myself have not looked into it too much...and unsure if anyone really has.

@VCheng

One of the issues with any approach - state or federal level - is dealing with the diversity of circumstances in a way that is scalable. What works in NYC will never work in all of Montana. Then comes the attitudes of the population, ranging from entitlement to personal responsibility, and a distinct aversion to any perceptions of rationing.