CNA interviewed Careshield Life review community Chairman, Mah and the discussion touched on higher premium for female and the starting payout of $600 which is still pretty low to be helpful to those who are severely disable. But according to Mr Mah, this new scheme has 'significant improvement'.
Mr Mah said females are required to foot higher premium because they live longer. But it is the average life span of female which is longer than male, NOT survival years after being hit with severe disability. Are that statistic to show that severely disable female lives longer than their male counter?
According the Mr Mah, the new scheme has 'significant improvement' as the payout is $600 for life. But it is only $200 more than the previous scheme which payout is $400 for 6 yrs. This was last revised in 2007. So it is a miserable $200 increase over 13 years ! (2020-2007 as Caresheild Life starts from 2020). Is this amount significant?
We also need to see concrete statistic that those severely disable does live longer, as previously we were told the surviving years is 6 after being hit by severe disability. If not there is no significant improvement in Careshield Life, except that it is significantly more expensive with 10 years earlier sign up age and 12 yrs longer and higher premium payment compare to formal Eldershield scheme.
Mr Mah also claimed that the new scheme caters for inflation. He gave the example of a person suffering from disability at age 31 (2021) will get $600 payout for life. While one who suffers from disability at age 55 (2045) will get $1000 for life. But to me this is because he/she pays longer premium that is why the payout is more rather than catering for inflation. What about that poor chap who is hit with disability at age 31? He still gets $600 in 2045 presuming he is still alive. How can this be catering for inflation ?
Thus, the review committee for Careshield Life justification for the scheme premium and so call 'significant improvement' don't hold up to reasoning.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Monday, May 28, 2018
Careshielf Life ...another 'helping us' scheme to load up CPF coffer
Seems like what started out as voluntary scheme in CPF always end up being compulsory. The latest being Eldershield renamed as Careshield Life. So they claim that it is a better scheme as payout is for life - if one meets the criteria of unable to do 3 basic daily activities such as feeding, washing, dressing, mobility, toileting and transferring.
What an irony, if one is so severely disable, one would wish to go earlier than to live longer to get more payout. Perhaps they should consider including legalizing euthanasia if they are serious about helping us. What is the point if our quality of life is at rock bottom.
The most important clause in the formal scheme remain untouched - criteria for claim eligibility. This has been a point of contention of the public as most likely to suffer 1 to 2 disability. To suffer from 3, is too strict a criteria. Perhaps that is the reason the payout rate is so low since only a minority meets the claim criteria.
It is stated that there are 1.3 million Eldershield policy holders and the total premium paid is $3.3 billion, but payout is only $133 million ! So much profit perhaps that is the reason CPF taking over the scheme from the appointed 3 insurance companies.
It is not stated out of the 1.3 million policy holders the percentage that meet the claim criteria when they suffer from disability. Their biggest 'selling' point in this new scheme is the life payout if one is disable. But what is the point if one can't even meet the criteria for claim.
In the old scheme, the payout is for 6 years because they told us that their statistic has shown that those who suffer from severe disability die within 6 years. Now they tell us this scheme is so 'good' as it is life payout. But likely most will still go to heaven within 6 years and CPF coffer will be loaded with premium paid.
Besides premium being higher in Careshield life, premium payment is 12 yrs longer than the previous scheme. The premium also gets higher each year (unlike previous scheme, premium fix at joining age). Only the first five year premium is made known to increase by 2 % each year after that it is unknown. Oh yes - there is some subsidy which will last for 5 years - this has always been the 'carrot' they offer us whenever they come out with some new scheme or increase taxes...etc.
They said that the opt out rate for the old scheme has been stable at 5%. So if the new scheme is so good - why make it compulsory? Wouldn't everyone rush to join in even if it is to remain voluntary?
What an irony, if one is so severely disable, one would wish to go earlier than to live longer to get more payout. Perhaps they should consider including legalizing euthanasia if they are serious about helping us. What is the point if our quality of life is at rock bottom.
The most important clause in the formal scheme remain untouched - criteria for claim eligibility. This has been a point of contention of the public as most likely to suffer 1 to 2 disability. To suffer from 3, is too strict a criteria. Perhaps that is the reason the payout rate is so low since only a minority meets the claim criteria.
It is stated that there are 1.3 million Eldershield policy holders and the total premium paid is $3.3 billion, but payout is only $133 million ! So much profit perhaps that is the reason CPF taking over the scheme from the appointed 3 insurance companies.
It is not stated out of the 1.3 million policy holders the percentage that meet the claim criteria when they suffer from disability. Their biggest 'selling' point in this new scheme is the life payout if one is disable. But what is the point if one can't even meet the criteria for claim.
In the old scheme, the payout is for 6 years because they told us that their statistic has shown that those who suffer from severe disability die within 6 years. Now they tell us this scheme is so 'good' as it is life payout. But likely most will still go to heaven within 6 years and CPF coffer will be loaded with premium paid.
Besides premium being higher in Careshield life, premium payment is 12 yrs longer than the previous scheme. The premium also gets higher each year (unlike previous scheme, premium fix at joining age). Only the first five year premium is made known to increase by 2 % each year after that it is unknown. Oh yes - there is some subsidy which will last for 5 years - this has always been the 'carrot' they offer us whenever they come out with some new scheme or increase taxes...etc.
They said that the opt out rate for the old scheme has been stable at 5%. So if the new scheme is so good - why make it compulsory? Wouldn't everyone rush to join in even if it is to remain voluntary?
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Shouldn't AVA Be Prosecuted ?
In the recent case of culling of chickens in Sin Ming, who can verify that all those birds culled were domestic fowls? There is a high probability that there are red jungle fowls among them.
A healthy brood of red jungle fowls which are protected endangered species has been featured in a few documentaries (besides Wild City). Thus it is unbelievable when AVA claims that those were all domestic chickens. It is unlikely that a healthy brood of red jungle fowls 'disappeared' overnight to be replaced by a brood chickens.
Besides, AVA also claims that the birds were killed humanly. However, there is no explanation on the method used. If the current method to cull pigeons is used - it is very cruel. Pigeons are first poison to incapacitate their motion, so we see pigeons falling of ledges and roofs after ingesting poison but still alive. Then they are stuff into bags to suffocate slowly to death.
It is an irony that AVA being the 'gatekeeper' for the act on cruelty against animals condone such inhumane culling method for years. Can AVA be trusted to be a reliable 'gatekeeper' for our protected endanger species?
What if the authority such as AVA has crossed the line and infringed upon the Act to protect endangered species and animals against cruelty in the Sin Ming fowl incident - who will prosecute AVA ?
Can we trust AVA to own self check own self ?
A healthy brood of red jungle fowls which are protected endangered species has been featured in a few documentaries (besides Wild City). Thus it is unbelievable when AVA claims that those were all domestic chickens. It is unlikely that a healthy brood of red jungle fowls 'disappeared' overnight to be replaced by a brood chickens.
Besides, AVA also claims that the birds were killed humanly. However, there is no explanation on the method used. If the current method to cull pigeons is used - it is very cruel. Pigeons are first poison to incapacitate their motion, so we see pigeons falling of ledges and roofs after ingesting poison but still alive. Then they are stuff into bags to suffocate slowly to death.
It is an irony that AVA being the 'gatekeeper' for the act on cruelty against animals condone such inhumane culling method for years. Can AVA be trusted to be a reliable 'gatekeeper' for our protected endanger species?
What if the authority such as AVA has crossed the line and infringed upon the Act to protect endangered species and animals against cruelty in the Sin Ming fowl incident - who will prosecute AVA ?
Can we trust AVA to own self check own self ?
Friday, August 26, 2016
HAZE - NEA 1 hourly averaged data is not PSI but in ug/m3
Many are not aware that there is a difference in PSI reading and ug/m3 (microgram per meter cube). This is because the health warning levels are different.
NEA 24 hour average and 3 hour average readings are in PSI. NEA 1 hour average reading is in ug/m3 (not PSI).
S'pore official health advisory is based on 24 hours average PSI reading. However, for our personal health concern, we should base our activities on 1 hour real time reading in PSI, a reference we are familiar with. NEA does not provide real time 1 hour data in PSI.
*Health advisory by NEA in PSI for 24 hour averaged reading:
0 -50 Good
51-100 Moderate
101-200 Unhealthy
201-300 Very Unhealthy
more than 300 Hazardous
*Health advisory by NEA in ug/m3 for 24 hour averaged reading:
less/equal 55 Normal
56-150 Elevated
151-250 High
more than 250 Very High
It seems that NEA has changed their reference parameter this year for haze reporting in ug/m3. It has chosen to use such neutral descriptive words, which render them useless for public health reference.
**Formal descriptive reference from NEA and MOH website last year:
Index Category PSI 24hrPM2.5 ug/m3
Good 0-50 0-12
Moderate 51-100 13-55
Unhealthy 101-200 56-150
Very Unhealthy 201-300 151-250
Hazardous above 301 above 251
Thus, on 26/8/16 at 12 noon Spore West area hitting 216 ug/m3 (not PSI) is very alarming, as it is in the very unhealthy range !
NOTE :
1) US EPA adopts 35 ug/m3 as unhealthy limit for 24 hrs PM2.5 which is a more stringent standard than S'pore.
2) For real time data on PSI please refer to : aqicn.org - which provides real time air pollution information for more than 60 countries in the world
NEA 24 hour average and 3 hour average readings are in PSI. NEA 1 hour average reading is in ug/m3 (not PSI).
S'pore official health advisory is based on 24 hours average PSI reading. However, for our personal health concern, we should base our activities on 1 hour real time reading in PSI, a reference we are familiar with. NEA does not provide real time 1 hour data in PSI.
*Health advisory by NEA in PSI for 24 hour averaged reading:
0 -50 Good
51-100 Moderate
101-200 Unhealthy
201-300 Very Unhealthy
more than 300 Hazardous
*Health advisory by NEA in ug/m3 for 24 hour averaged reading:
less/equal 55 Normal
56-150 Elevated
151-250 High
more than 250 Very High
It seems that NEA has changed their reference parameter this year for haze reporting in ug/m3. It has chosen to use such neutral descriptive words, which render them useless for public health reference.
**Formal descriptive reference from NEA and MOH website last year:
Index Category PSI 24hrPM2.5 ug/m3
Good 0-50 0-12
Moderate 51-100 13-55
Unhealthy 101-200 56-150
Very Unhealthy 201-300 151-250
Hazardous above 301 above 251
Thus, on 26/8/16 at 12 noon Spore West area hitting 216 ug/m3 (not PSI) is very alarming, as it is in the very unhealthy range !
NOTE :
1) US EPA adopts 35 ug/m3 as unhealthy limit for 24 hrs PM2.5 which is a more stringent standard than S'pore.
2) For real time data on PSI please refer to : aqicn.org - which provides real time air pollution information for more than 60 countries in the world
Friday, April 8, 2016
Vandalism along HDB corridors
Vendors who are mostly providing plumbing, electrical and lock/keys services have been vandalizing HDB common corridor for years. They paste their advertising stickers on electricity meters and water pipes.
These stickers are hard to remove. Last year, the flats in my area have been given a fresh coat of paint which includes the water pipes outside the flats. Now these pipes have been vandalized again with unsightly stickers.
Their company name and contact number are on the stickers and could be easily traced. Why do HDB/Town Council not take action to warn and prosecute these vendors ?
These stickers are hard to remove. Last year, the flats in my area have been given a fresh coat of paint which includes the water pipes outside the flats. Now these pipes have been vandalized again with unsightly stickers.
Their company name and contact number are on the stickers and could be easily traced. Why do HDB/Town Council not take action to warn and prosecute these vendors ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
