In the article “Making the NHI [National Health Insurance] system sustainable” (page 8, Jan. 11), Yang Cheming (楊哲銘) said that “patients’ sense of responsibility for and control over their medical spending are precisely what is missing in this nation’s system,” and that Taiwan should look to the health savings accounts used in Singapore’s Medicare system, in which “when all the money in someone’s account has been spent, they have to pay for any further medical expenses themselves.”
In other words, there should be an upper spending limit in the NHI system.
Utmost caution is required when addressing such a suggestion, as such changes could lead to a collapse of the fundamental components of the NHI system.
The first principle of insurance is financial risk sharing and social insurance is focused on income redistribution. Since the insurance mechanism transfers insurance fees from healthy people to people who are unwell, and because salaries and other income that provide the basis for calculating social insurance fees tend to transfer the fees of high-income earners toward low-income earners, social insurance performs a double function in redistributing income.
However, Singapore’s health savings accounts only allocates funds to individuals, which cannot be used by anyone else. The result is there is no financial risk sharing between people, which means there is no insurance system.
By academic classification, such a system would be called “self-funded.”
Removing financial risk sharing would eliminate social insurance’s double income redistribution function, which would set Taiwan back to the time before 1949 when there was no social insurance at all — society would no longer be focused on the collective, but rather on the individual.
The fact is even the Singaporean government is aware that its health insurance system is flawed. In particular, when the funds in an individual account are insufficient and the individual has to pay using their own funds, the government can no longer guarantee individual incomes. The government therefore allocates more funds to the health savings accounts for which the upper limit spending has been reached, while designing another standard social insurance to cover the risks and make up for the systemic shortcomings.
The final question posed to academics by the Singaporean system has to do with the fact that while the government does nothing, commercial insurance at least provides financial risk sharing and simple income redistribution. That the system the government is treating with such caution performs no financial risk sharing or income redistribution raises the question of what the government is actually doing.
Asking the public to control and make decisions regarding their medical expenses is tantamount to asking them to decide what medical services they want when they are sick. The cost of having the public act as their own doctors puts their health or their life in danger, or requires them to spend a decade reading up on the relevant medical literature.
The solution to the insurmountable cost of taking care of one’s own health is, of course, to choose a method that comes at a lower cost, and that is to let a doctor make medical decisions on one’s behalf. Since a doctor is making the decisions regarding medical procedure and content, the system should stress the doctor’s control of medical expenditure rather than putting the responsibility on the public.
Lee Jwo-leun is an associate professor in the department of senior citizen service management at National Taichung University of Science and Technology.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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