An overhaul of a health insurance system is a major undertaking in any country. This is because national health insurance systems involve the welfare of every citizen — present and future. As all eyes focus on the legislative review of the hotly debated amendments to the National Health Insurance Act (全民健保法), Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) is trying to get the second-generation health insurance through, despite the obstacles that remain.
The reforms need to address several major issues, such as the fee base, a new insurance premium system, varying levels of payment and the black hole caused by the price of medication. However, the Cabinet-approved draft only addresses the expansion of the fee base and proposes that single people and DINKs (double income, no kids) pay more. In addition, the plan makes no mention of how to reduce the waste of resources. No wonder Democratic Progressive Party legislators have objected to it. What’s more, the draft hasn’t even garnered the full support of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers.
Even if the draft passes, the reform efforts would be a failure because several crucial issues would remain unresolved.
The first issue is fairness. The premium would be based on household income, not population, in order to expand the fee base. Everyone with an income is liable, but the new system would only take into account income from salaries, interest and dividends, but not from capital gains, property and stock speculation, pensions or overseas income. In what way is this fair, reasonable or just?
The second issue is whether these reforms even make sense. Premiums would no longer be calculated on the number of dependents in a household, and would instead be based on total household income. The correct way to calculate the health insurance premium is simply related to how much will be paid on settling claims, and has nothing to do with one’s income, job, marital status or the number of kids.
The two major criteria that affect how much is to be paid are the rate of usage of medical treatment and inflation. The latter is beyond the control of health insurance policy or legislators and depends on the rate of economic growth and commodity prices. The usage rate, however, which is strongly related to the rate of premiums, can be controlled by the cost of treatment provided. The Bureau of National Health Insurance has allowed the waste of medical resources to spiral.
The third issue is distributing the burden. The provision of medical treatment has direct implications for patients’ health, recovery prospects and prognosis, and people should be able to pay however much they want. Not all prescription drugs cost the same. The basic principle is that patients who use branded prescription drugs pay a little more, while those using generic drugs pay less. However, this is not the main point: The department has not addressed the main issue. While it is fine to give patients the option of paying more for different levels of medical treatment, the same thing should not apply to prescription drugs. This is clearly a retrogressive compromise that flies in the face of expert opinion.
Finally, there is the financial black hole. Expenditures on prescription drugs takes up a quarter of total annual costs, with more than NT$120 billion (US$4 billion) spent on drugs every year. This is hospitals profiting through the abuse of premiums. If this problem isn’t addressed, the waste will continue.
The government is aware that healthcare reforms implemented by US President Barack Obama contributed to his drubbing in the recent midterm elections and it waited until the five special municipality elections were over before it pushed to get the health insurance reform process passed by the legislature. However, if these reforms fall short of public expectations, the government will pay the price in the 2012 presidential elections.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers