REACH (Telegram) 110 -  What are your views on the efforts to manage healthcare cost through changes to the Integrated Shield Plan?

(SK)

28 Nov 2025 (10am - 7pm)

REACH (Telegram)

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 9:56 am]

Dear Contributors,

Welcome Back! 😊

⏰ We will be opening the chat from 10.15am to 7pm today. ⏰

House Rules (short version of our Terms of Use) to keep in mind:

1. Be kind and respectful. We all want to be in a safe space to share our views. 

2. Any and all threatening, abusive, vulgar or racially, religiously and ethnically objectionable content is prohibited. 

3. Consider the quiet ones among us and give them a chance to comment. 

4. No need to repeat your comment or in different forms (including caps) - we heard you loud and clear the first time. 

5. Let's protect each other's privacy and keep contact details in this group what it should always be - confidential. 

Full set of Terms of Use: https://www.reach.gov.sg/Participate/reach-telegram-group/REACH-Telegram-Group-Chat-Terms-of-Use/

We will strive to uphold these rules to ensure this is a safe space for all. 

Please be assured that the points made by participants during the chat are aggregated and shared with relevant agencies. 

The topic will be posted shortly. 

Thank you. 

Megan 😊

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 10:16 am]

📢 Topic 📢

Ministry of Health (MOH) announced on Wednesday (Nov 26) that new riders will no longer be allowed to cover the minimum plan deductibles, as part of measures to address rising private healthcare costs. Integrated Shield Plan policyholders who buy new riders from next April will see changes to what their coverage includes, as well as a higher minimum co-payment cap.

💬 What are your views on the efforts to manage healthcare cost through changes to the Integrated Shield Plan?

Currently, policyholders with riders must co-pay at least 5% of their bills, with insurers setting a co-payment cap of no less than S$3,000 per year. 

This cap will be raised to a minimum of S$6,000 per year for riders sold from April 2026 to “keep pace with the increase in bill sizes over time”, said MOH. The current minimum 5% co-payment requirement will remain. 

📌 Tackling Overconsumption

While very comprehensive coverage that “protects up to almost the last dollar” can “confer absolute peace of mind”, this can be very expensive and drives up healthcare costs, said the Health Ministry. Minimal co-payments tend to encourage patients to overconsume healthcare services and for providers to overservice them, it added.

“These changes will help to bring health insurance back to its original objective, which is to protect patients against larger healthcare bills,” said MOH. “It will increase cost discipline over minor episodes, and reduce overservicing and overconsumption associated with non-essential hospital admissions or treatments.”

The changes also have a longer-term objective – to set private health insurance on a more sustainable path so that it remains a viable option for Singaporeans who opt for private healthcare services, the ministry added.

📌 Impact on Policyholders

About 6 in 10 claimants across all ward types will not need to pay for anything in cash, as MediSave limits are enough to cover deductibles and co-payments, said MOH.  About 3 in 10 claimants will pay less than S$1,000 after MediSave, while the remainder – mostly private hospital patients – may pay more than S$1,000.

With the changes, new riders are expected to be about 30 per cent cheaper than current ones offering maximum coverage, MOH said. “While the changes entail more co-payment for smaller bills, they should not stop patients from seeking care when it is needed,” the ministry said.

While patients will pay more when they are admitted to a hospital, this will generally be offset by lower premiums each year, so they end up paying less overall. In addition, keeping premiums in check also benefits the majority of policyholders who stay out of hospitals and do not make claims.

📌 Implementation Timeline

Insurers must launch the new riders by 1 Apr 2026, and cease selling those that do not comply with the new requirements on the same day. Existing riders can continue to be sold until 31 Mar 2026, but buyers must be informed they will move to the new framework by their next policy renewal after 1 Apr 2028.

As for existing rider policies, insurers will “further study” and “determine their own approach”, said MOH. Policyholders who purchased riders before 27 Nov 2025 are encouraged to consult their financial advisers on whether the new ones would better suit their needs.

Asked if some insurers may retain existing terms for current policyholders, MOH acknowledged the possibility but said the revised rules would apply to all new riders. “If they don’t change and only the new rider policyholders are on the new riders … then the impact on cost would have to take a much longer time," MOH said. "Because you would only see the change in behaviour when the new rider holders are actually claiming.” 

👉 https://cna.asia/4rBgIXE

👉 https://str.sg/q8mK

----

365, [28/11/2025 10:38 am]

This just means less coverage for insurance holders, even if they are willing to pay more. I feel this is a bad way to tackle the issue. In a way, those that have paid more for the riders, should have a right to the consumption as they have paid more for it. Paying more for that peace of mind, and keeping up with their health.

If you're taking away what riders can provide, then what good are riders for then? The whole reason they are providing more benefits in the first place is because they cost the policy holders more in premiums, and I think that is fair.

Disregarding the statement on fairness above, if the objective is to prevent excessive consumption for non-essential hospital admissions or treatments, then the minimum co-payment should be targeting specifically conditions that are considered as non-essential, while keeping the same coverage for the essential ones.

Daniel, [28/11/2025 10:52 am]

I think this is a good move. Having a rider and using it, means the extra cost not only burden the rider but also the main integrated plan as the extra consumption would be split to rider (copayment and deductible) and IP (bulk of claim). 

I feel having to pay a portion of the bill proportional to the actual costs is a good thing. Plus it should make the riders cheaper as well.

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 11:00 am]

[ Poll : 1. I am confident that the changes to the Integrated Shield Plan will effectively manage healthcare costs. ]

- Strongly Agree

- Agree

- Neutral 

- Disagree

- Strongly Disagree

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 11:00 am]

[ Poll : 2. I understand the changes to the Integrated Shield Plan will benefit our healthcare system. ]

- Strongly Agree

- Agree

- Neutral 

- Strongly Disagree

- Disagree

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 11:04 am]

Dear Contributors,

Please take a moment to participate in our polls and share your opinion. The poll questions are pinned for easy reference and your vote is anonymous. 

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on today’s topic!

💬 What are your views on the efforts to manage healthcare cost through changes to the Integrated Shield Plan?

Thank you.

Megan 😊

365, [28/11/2025 11:04 am]

But the rider is optional, if you do not want the extra cost of burden, you can opt not to add on

365, [28/11/2025 11:04 am]

I feel this is taking away from consumers who are willing to pay more to feel extra secure

Nicholas, [28/11/2025 11:06 am]

Are there statistics to support this approach? From what I've seen, the premiums go down only slightly despite the need for us to co-pay. So we end up paying almost the same except that we also need to co-pay for hospital bills, and are restricted to only doctors who are on a panel.

Nicholas, [28/11/2025 11:07 am]

Feels like I'm paying the same for less coverage. Benefits the insurer rather than the end consumer.

365, [28/11/2025 11:07 am]

From how I see it, rider (optional) = additional premiums paid = more benefits and coverage, which I think isn't wrong.

If you do feel that you are fine with more co-pay and want less premiums, then the option is to opt out of the riders no?

365, [28/11/2025 11:16 am]

"While patients will pay more when they are admitted to a hospital, this will generally be offset by lower premiums each year, so they end up paying less overall", this is so flawed when you can do the exact same thing by not opting for the riders, thus paying less premiums but pay more if admitted to a hospital.

"It will increase cost discipline over minor episodes, and reduce overservicing and overconsumption associated with non-essential hospital admissions or treatments", but this change also cause collateral damage to the major episodes and essential hospital admissions and treatment.

If they want to proceed with the change, I think they should spare the effort to segregate and classify what is minor and what is major, and then keep the minimal co-payment requirements for the major ones.

Daniel, [28/11/2025 11:19 am]

Yes, that is true in principle. But the problem is that the rider only covers copayment and deductible. But if people with riders use more services (as the articles seem to imply, and which also makes sense, since it's free), this will also mean more claims on the base plan. This then means higher premiums for everyone, including people without rider, because in insurance the premium is calculated to cover everyone's claims.

The "fairer" option would be to charge different base IP premiums based on whether people have rider or not (and based on the statisticl claim history of those groups). I think not many people would agree with that, hence the option they are proposing seems a good alternative.

G, [28/11/2025 11:20 am]

Feels more like punishing patients 

Why not tackle the source of the problem?

High prices of drugs

High prices of doctors fees

High prices of treatment

Clinical sales techniques that try to sell more and more expensive treatments that the patient doesn't need

365, [28/11/2025 11:34 am]

That option is just making the rider more expensive. I think that is fine depending on the magnitude of the increase. Now the change is just limiting options for people.

I understand their rationale to prevent overconsumption, but approaching it this way just turn those that really need the additional coverage into collateral damage, thus the suggestion to classify and segregate the copay requirement for minor and major episodes.

365, [28/11/2025 11:35 am]

Prevent misuse for minor episodes, so increase copay for those, then keep, or maybe even decrease copay requirement for major episodes.

Adam, [28/11/2025 11:57 am]

So if we have minor episode just dont go doctor?

Adam, [28/11/2025 11:58 am]

Maybe we can become like america where people dont call ambulance

Adam, [28/11/2025 11:59 am]

Btw speaking of overconsumption, our ambulances are free. Paid for by the sweat of our nsf and the pockets of taxpayers

Adam, [28/11/2025 11:59 am]

If we can implement copayment for hospitals, why not copayment for ambulance?

Adam, [28/11/2025 12:00 pm]

Or maybe our dear nsf medics can just be paid by the honor of serving the nation. Throw in a medal too

Adam, [28/11/2025 12:03 pm]

Or if we want to make healthcare as cheap as our ambulance, we can create a large pool of people to serve the country in healthcare

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 12:04 pm]

This episode makes me wonder if those private hospital plan and eci which one should you take to save money

Adam, [28/11/2025 12:05 pm]

Die save most money. Depending on treatment dunno if you increase quality of life or prolong suffering

Adam, [28/11/2025 12:07 pm]

Lots of seniors have million dollar property cannot take beyond grave. Maybe they can do reverse mortgage to pay healthcare to burden the subsidised healthcare system less

365, [28/11/2025 12:11 pm]

Unironically this is true. Everyone have a different expectation and standard to the quality of life they want, and I think they should be allowed to opt for euthanasia if their bodies can no longer provide the quality of life they want.

It's a win for both sides, the patient being able to finally be free from pain and suffering, instead of surviving like a mindless zombie, on the other hand, medical resources are freed up and available for those who need and want them.

Daniel, [28/11/2025 12:53 pm]

Unless it becomes an expectation. That people will chose that option in order not to be a burden and not to avoid suffering.

365, [28/11/2025 1:01 pm]

I think it's not ideal to deny ideas based on worse case scenarios, but this is a whole other topic so I won't dive further.

RY, [28/11/2025 1:31 pm]

Premiums & Riders are increasing over the years 

The increase of co-payment fm 3K to 6K is almost double  - that is significant

As some people not working, their Cpf/Medisave not that much 

Whether it is overconsumption eg scans are suggested by pte Dr and not patients solely 

Hope the existing holder with deductible rider remains and not affected

RY, [28/11/2025 1:34 pm]

Hope pte insurers with IP will lower the premiums ultimately

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:48 pm]

I did not buy those insurance plan because lack of money

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:48 pm]

Cause I understand I already have medisheild

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 1:50 pm]

th increase in premium is partly due to the abuses of the previous private integrated medishield plan where there are riders that covers both the deductibles and copayment which ended up the insurance companies paying for 100% of the hospitalization cost. so the people and doctors will go for unnecessary scanning medical checkup, mri, ct scan etc...

all these cost is taken up by the insurance companies. the initial idea of 100% coverages with the inclusion of rider is to help the people...but it get backfire because of abusing of the 100% coverage plan. that result in the increase of insurance premium due to unnecessary tests

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:50 pm]

So for new policy you only need to pay maximum 6k

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:51 pm]

In lay man term

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:51 pm]

As quite confusing

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 1:53 pm]

it is not that the insurance companies are unethical...it is the people who abusing it causes the premium to increase.  resulted in those people who needed it and get the most help from such insurance plan unable to enjoy the benefits it brings due to abuse of the plan by those who are not vulnerable and needed it less

Nicholas, [28/11/2025 1:55 pm]

Does it mean i've to pay the first S$6k of the bill and insurer will cover after? So if the bill is S$5k, a) I've to bear the full amount OR b) I only pay 5% i.e. S$250 and insurer bears the rest. I feel b) is fine but a) isn't, unless the premiums drop by a huge amount, which usually isn't the case.

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:58 pm]

I think is b

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:58 pm]

Capped at 6k

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:58 pm]

If I am not wrong?

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 1:58 pm]

Any insurance agent here can explain

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 2:13 pm]

📢 Topic 📢

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 2:17 pm]

it is like car insurance excess.

........

it is to reduce the cost of insurance...

for that one year of insurance coverage... the insured need to pay for the first $6k of the medical cost...after that the insurance companies will cover the rest of the cost.

e.g. person A 

hospitalized in jan and it cost $5k.

hospitalized in march and it cost $20k

so the person A has to pay $6k in hospitalization bill and the rest of $19k will be bear by insurance company up to the max limit for that year, assuming the max limit is $300k.

so..the person A left $281k in the coverage..

if the person is unfortunate enough to be hospitalized a few time within that year, and the bills is $300k...

the insurance company will cover that $281 which the max coverage has reached.

thus the remaining $19k...the person A will has to pay for it

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 2:22 pm]

so the total bills is $325k for the year..

the person A pays $6k , and $19k (this $19k is due to the max coverage limit is reached thus the insurance company will not cover.)

while the insurance company paid for $300k of the $325k hospitalization bills..

.....this is how insurance help the people

365, [28/11/2025 2:34 pm]

But if person A hospitalized in Jan only, he has to pay the entire 5k himself or just 5% of the 5k?

365, [28/11/2025 2:35 pm]

My understanding is 5% copay until your cumulative reaches 3k (or the new 6k)

365, [28/11/2025 2:35 pm]

I guess this only really affects if your bills exceed 150k for the year then?

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 2:36 pm]

driving my parents to sgh medical appointment. reply later

Adam, [28/11/2025 2:39 pm]

Hospital realise they can charge a person 300k and threaten them with the alternative of death. The whole community pity the person and chip in a hundred bucks each in premium to pay the hospital.

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 3:25 pm]

using your questions.

assuming person A.

total hospitalization bills is $200k.

so based on $6k deductible

5% co payment.

and max of $150k per yearly renewal coverages

.....

first $6k pay by person A (deductible)

left $194k.

insurance coverage max of $150.

meaning.

$194 - $150 = $44k has to be paid by person A.

remaining $150k , co payment = 5% of $150k = $7.5k pay by person A.

the remaining $142.5 k is paid by insurance company.

so..the person A has to pay

$6k + $44k + $7.5k = $57.5k

out of $200k hospitalization bills.

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 3:28 pm]

the calculation is based on the underwriting and underwriter of the insurance company...they based on the claim rate of their imsured pools to decide the premium...there for for medisheild premium the premium can change year by year depending on the calim experience.

365, [28/11/2025 3:30 pm]

I think you're misunderstanding, I'm trying to lookout for how it is calculated for lower amounts, though I've gained my answer after reading the article again. If there's only 1 bill for the year and it's at 10k, I was checking if it's to pay until 6k first and the rest covered by insurance, but I've come to realize that it should be just 5% of the 10k, then cumulative until 6k before no co-payment is required (assuming there is sufficient coverage).

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 3:30 pm]

just like what Mr LKY said...yes.we are obssessed with profits. without profits who pays for all these.

you make profits into a dirty word and Singapore dies.

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 3:31 pm]

my understanding is based on generic old knowledge and plan before this new policie...

the concept and idea is about the same...

i have yet to read the new policies.

365, [28/11/2025 3:32 pm]

Since the 5% minimum co-payment is unchanged, this move on the policy will only affect those with a cumulative hospital bill of over 150k for the year

365, [28/11/2025 3:32 pm]

Because the previous copay limit is 3k, so 3k/5% is 150k. This portion does not change regardless of old or new.

365, [28/11/2025 3:33 pm]

The difference is after 150k, you still need to copay 5% for the next 150k, unlike the old one which will be fully covered by insurance, assuming your plan still has sufficient coverage.

365, [28/11/2025 3:35 pm]

I calculated wrongly, should be 60k instead of 150k

RY, [28/11/2025 3:40 pm]

This recent revision also based on assumption that patient has sufficient in Cpf Medisave to pay off the increased co-payment from 3K to 6K and the ins premiums and etc

What happen to those not working like homemaker/caregiver/handicapped/elderly/sick patient and etc, whom dont contribute to CPF ?

Will the govt help to top up their CPF for these grp of people?

365, [28/11/2025 3:40 pm]

Actually I think to prevent misuse and over servicing of minor Healthcare needs, it's better to increase copay% while keeping the limit.

Let's assume copay is 20% and limit remains at 3k, those who are misusing more than they need to will have to pay up more due to the higher copay. Those that really need it (in this example is anything more than 60k) can still receive the treatment they need without forking out more cash.

Anyone whose bill is 60k or less will have to pay more copay. The numbers are arbitrary and will have to be tweaked for optimization

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 3:44 pm]

Let say person a got stomach bloat and go private hospital to do Scope check up.  So he need to pay the 5% and the rest being pay by insurance assuming it's less than 150k

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 3:46 pm]

So in the end consumer lose more money or save money

365, [28/11/2025 3:48 pm]

Current case is he pays 5% of the whole bill up until 60k, and the rest covered by insurance if he has sufficient coverage.

The new one will be 5% of the whole bill up until 120k instead.

365, [28/11/2025 3:48 pm]

'whole bill' in this case is cumulative for the year

365, [28/11/2025 3:49 pm]

60k and 120k is the bill amount, the individual copay amount is 3k and 6k

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 3:49 pm]

fyi.

cost for heart attack hospitalization is about $110k , and this is based on estimation about 10 years or more ago.

the inflation for medical cost is about 5% to 8% yearly.

....so 60k or even 150k coverage..is ...Not enough  at all for rising medical cost and inflation..

.........

cancer treatment cost about $300k.(more than 10 years ago estimation)

excluding loss of income and daily expenses and transportation etc.

.................

365, [28/11/2025 3:50 pm]

So this just means that consumers are confirmed to pay more then

365, [28/11/2025 3:51 pm]

3k more for the year

365, [28/11/2025 3:53 pm]

Which is why I'd propose increasing copay % but keeping copay limit instead. Those that got hit with such incidents, will hit the threshold easily and continue paying 3k from themselves + medisave. Those that misuse it, maybe insisting on hospital stay when there's no need, will have to pay more due to higher copay %.

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 3:54 pm]

I will like to comment on the objectives to reform the healthcare insurance to manage its cost and whether it is beneficial to all Singaporeans :-

1. I support the reform of the health insurance to manage the runaway cost that are translated into :-

a. Higher and higher insurance premium for all Singaporeans - as the medical claims keep increasing every year.

b. Many insurance companies reported high medical claims that eat into their profit and are increasingly unsustainable :-

*Income Insurance*

Income insurance IP business shifted to a significant underwriting loss of *S$49.5 million* in 2024 due to surging claims costs, medical inflation, and a backlog of claims from 2023 that flowed into the next year. The premium adjustments made by Income in 2023 were implemented gradually and were expected to take time for their full impact to be reflected in later results.

*AIA*

AIA Group's financial results for the full year 2024 show an increase in overall operating profit, but specific information from one source indicates an *underwriting loss on health insurance* (Integrated Shield Plans) for AIA Singapore during that period.

Both Great Eastern and Prudential also indicate higher medical claims every year though they don't provide specific figures on health insurance.

To recoup the loss, Insurance industry as a whole are increasing the health premium every year - and many Singaporeans will have to pay more and more - which is unsustainable unfair to those Singaporeans that have not been claiming the medical insurance.

c. The reasons for high medical claims are due to the generous "full coverage" without the needs for claimant to fork out cash and hence :-

i. People abuse it due to "buffet syndrome" to get more treatment, more medication, unnecessary health screening etc.

ii. Hospital (specifically) private ones overservicing driven by profit and patients willing to be abuse for hospital treatment and screening as they do not need to pay - as they will be covered by insurers.

Hence stopping such runaway healthcare cost and stopping the abuse from ""buffet syndrome" become necessary.

Hence I strongly support the Government effort to cap the rider coverage and increase the co-payment.

This will inject sanity into patient seeking medical treatment - to get treated when necessary and not abuse it so that our healthcare cost can move into a sustainable trajectory.

Daniel, [28/11/2025 3:55 pm]

There's an interesting website by MOH (search for Bills and Fee benchmark). You can search for a condition and it will tell you the range of cost by hospital.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:01 pm]

I think the fees table can be expanded upon. They should hire a ux engineer to help make the data better for people

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:01 pm]

Some things are too granular, like you wont be searching for it until the doc say you have that specific problem

Daniel, [28/11/2025 4:02 pm]

Yeah, it's not easy to find the data without medical knowledge. I found it useful when choosing a maternity hospital though.

Daniel, [28/11/2025 4:02 pm]

Like I wanted to check heart attack as mentioned above, but I have no idea what category that goes under.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:03 pm]

Like if i know heart attack runs in the family but dont know the particular operation, its hard to gauge the exact needs. Furthermore some data points are absent due to low sample size

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 4:03 pm]

But isn't the doctors decide what type of treatment. So I don't get where's the buffet syndrome from

Joomua Tng, [28/11/2025 4:03 pm]

the hear attack and cancer  cost is from people and insurance company sharing......

i no need to know the exacy figure..for a rough estimation based on $110k and $300k..

it is not difficult to estimate how much it cost today..

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:03 pm]

In addition to the fees table, they should include how many percent of population it affects

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:04 pm]

Insurance wanna scare you with million dollar bills that might happen 0.01%

365, [28/11/2025 4:04 pm]

As that may be the case, but this is a very brute force and not well thought out solution to the problem. Identify what are the unnecessary consumption, such as health screening as you mentioned.

Seperate them out and increase their copay % or limit, while still providing the same assurance and protection for the others. No one is going to have a heart attack just to abuse the system.

Maybe even for health screening as an example, can limit to just once per year.

Provide a more granular and holistic solution rather than just punish the whole platoon for some soldiers.

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:04 pm]

Simply the objectives of the reform are to :-

1. Stop abuse from unnecessary treatment in a buffet style.

2. Prevent some patients from repeated claims on unnecessary treatment - and let the majority of non claimants to subsidize them resulting in higher and higher insurance costs as they don't need to pay out of pocket.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:04 pm]

Do we really need big protection for minute odds or might as well spend money enjoying life?

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:06 pm]

Eg. Go to public hospital, they will prescribe CT scan - few hundred $ - and CT scan will suffice.

Go to private hospital, they will prescribe MRI scan costing few thousands $ - over servicing.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:07 pm]

I think best way to reduce cost is allow insurance and subsidy for going to overseas like malaysia for healthcare

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:09 pm]

There is a fear that quality of healthcare is worse, but we have to weight the cost

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:09 pm]

No Singaporeans taxpayer money should be used to subsidize people who want to go for overseas treatment.

They should pay their own pocket money to do so.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:10 pm]

Why? All singaporeans pay into the system? Are not all entitled to withdraw

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:10 pm]

If migrate then you can take out your own money.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:11 pm]

Its not migration. Is medical tourism

365, [28/11/2025 4:11 pm]

This don't really solve the issue. The issue now is the thought if "since I don't need to pay so much, might as well consume". It's like seeing a black Friday sale and buying everything even if you don't need it.

The perceived better quality of singapore's Healthcare means they rather claim the "free" Healthcare in Singapore than Malaysia.

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:11 pm]

Then use your own money for tourism.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:12 pm]

Your gst voucher also sometimes go holiday right? Or even buy china stuff. Not like 100% support local

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:12 pm]

If you like local so much, go buy the vege from local instead of china. 5x the price

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:14 pm]

Healthcare is inevitable. Just like food. Singapore has to provide. Would you rather all healthcare be provided locally at expensive rates or let some foreign?

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:15 pm]

If we treat it like bread and butter, we can make rice locally at 10x the cost

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:15 pm]

Better for stability, higher quality, strong economy

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:15 pm]

You can use your own pocket money to go overseas treatment for cheaper price.

I don't think anyone will object.

Just that don't use our taxpayer money such as subsidy which is meant for our domestic economy.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:15 pm]

Wanna pay for expensive veggies?

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:16 pm]

Oh I consume both local vege produce and imported vege.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:16 pm]

Our domestic economy is artifically inflated by these subsidies

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:17 pm]

People do buffet syndrome locally since if they dont, they are 'wasting' tax paid medical care

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:18 pm]

The income you earned in Singapore also very high, much higher than people in ASEAN.

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:18 pm]

That is why must stop the abuse.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:24 pm]

Yeah singaporeans make a alot of money that they splurge overseas.

So lets say we have NO subsidy for goin overseas. Fine.

But CPF Medisave is MY money right? Why cant i use MY money for MY medical treatment anywhere?

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:26 pm]

CPF Medisave received periodic top up from government taxpayer money.

Interest received annually also from government taxpayer money.

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:26 pm]

And CPF scheme is for domestic economy - not for overseas spending.

Jun Ming, [28/11/2025 4:26 pm]

But patient usually don't have a say in choosing treatment method

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:27 pm]

That's why public hospitals are very professional and honest.

They don't over service.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:29 pm]

We cannot take everything as domestic. Singapore cannot survive on isolation. We dont want to be isolationist like usa

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:30 pm]

I use my cpf oa for buying us etfs

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:30 pm]

If cpf was 100% domestic we can only buy singapore stock

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:30 pm]

Well our policy is 1st domestic focus, then look outward for growth.

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:31 pm]

This is investment not expenditure

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:31 pm]

Maybe our gov can buy land in johor to build nursing homes

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:31 pm]

Cost less than importing ton of labour and housing in cramped space

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:31 pm]

This is sovereign issue.

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:32 pm]

You could trigger an unnecessary cross border uproar.

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:33 pm]

China investment in building a big plot of land in JB force to jettison because of political uproar.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:34 pm]

Our politicians expert im sure they can negotiate something. We already making power link to australia. Is solar farms in australia a sovereign issue?

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:34 pm]

If whenever we suggest a cross border project are we just gonna shut it down cos scared to talk?

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:35 pm]

No upside for us.

Easier for people who want lower cost of living to just buy a house there and spend there.

Should not use our taxpayer money.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:36 pm]

Everthing foreign have risk. Have to accept. Im pretty sure there is some strain from the foreign maids we have

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:36 pm]

If we want to cut the foreign risk. Stop have foreign domestic workers

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:37 pm]

Or foreign workers in general. They always get abused. What if philipines or bangaladesh starts a war?

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:37 pm]

We have to get foreigners to cut down cost. Everywhere from childrearing to construction.

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:37 pm]

Is healthcare an exception?

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:38 pm]

Gov spends so much build hdb, why doesnt it support local economy 100% like cpf. Why get foreign labor?

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 4:39 pm]

You want to work as construction workers?

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:40 pm]

Actually i want it all replaced by robots and ai

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:41 pm]

We see shoddy construction anyway because there isnt a culture that encourage quality work

Adam, [28/11/2025 4:44 pm]

Singapore too expensive and overloaded. I think it just too much to subsidize people for small space.

You see the gov say dont waste resources for minor issue but reality is, people will want to maximise squeezing the buffet

LCL (Danny 心), [28/11/2025 5:28 pm]

After note:-

Total market capitalisation in Singapore Stock Exchange (SES) is $899 billion.

Figures pertaining to GLCs are unavailable. However, GLCs form the largest shares of market capitalisation in SES.

Hence, my estimate of $200 billion to nationalise GLCs is a very conservative figures.

----

Source:- Google AI

There is no single, publicly available total asset value for all Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) in the Singapore stock exchange, as GLCs are a diverse group of publicly traded companies with varying asset bases. However, reports indicate GLCs collectively accounted for approximately 23% of the assets of the largest 500 firms, or around 24% of the stock market's total capitalization in a 2006 study, though this percentage has likely changed since then. To get a sense of the scale, the total market capitalization of all listed companies on the Singapore Exchange was approximately S$899 billion in February 2022. 

GLCs are not a monolithic group: They are a diverse set of publicly traded companies where the government holds a substantial stake.

Asset breakdown: As of a 2006 study, GLCs accounted for about 23% of the assets of the top 500 firms, and roughly 24% of the total market capitalization of the Singapore stock exchange.

Total market capitalization: The total market capitalization of all companies on the Singapore Exchange was approximately S$899 billion in February 2022.

Individual company data: The total value is not reported in a single figure, but you can find the net assets of individual GLCs through their financial reports. 

====

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 6:01 pm]

📢 Topic 📢

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 6:45 pm]

Dear Contributors,

⏰ We will be closing the chat in 15 minutes ⏰

Thank you very much for being part of our Telegram chat and participating actively.

Goodnight!

Megan 😊

REACH Singapore, [28/11/2025 7:01 pm]

Dear Contributors

We will be closing the chat for today.

Thank you very much for being part of our Telegram chat and participating actively.

Goodnight!

Megan 😊

====