Lucky Tan discuss the size of a home in Singapore and our productivity
http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2012/04/singapore-homes-shrink-and-so-will-our.html
http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2012/04/singapore-homes-shrink-and-so-will-our.html
In its broadest sense, "no-fault insurance" is a term used to describe any type of insurance contract under which insureds are indemnified for losses by their own insurance company, regardless of fault in the incident generating losses. In this sense, it is no different from first-party coverage. However, the term no-fault is most commonly used in the context of state/provincial automobile insurancelaws in the United States, Canada, and Australia, in which a policyholder (and his/her passengers) are not only reimbursed by the policyholder’s own insurance company without proof of fault, but also restricted in the right to seek recovery through the civil-justice system for losses caused by other parties.
No-fault insurance has the goal of lowering premium costs by avoiding expensive litigation over the causes of accidents, while providing quick payments for injuries or loss of property. The victim's insurance company would only pay out the claim, while the driver-at-fault's insurance company would pay out a claim and charge that party a higher insurance premium as they are now higher risk. While this may disadvantage the victim's insurance company, as the at-fault driver's insurance company can recoup the claims quicker through raised premiums, accidents happen between drivers of both insurance companies with an equal chance of drivers from both sides being at fault, so this in theory should even out.
Critics of no-fault argue that it does not punish reckless or negligent drivers sufficiently, with only raised premiums and a higher risk rating, and no jury awards or legal settlements. Detractors of no-fault also point out that legitimate victims with subtle handicaps find it difficult to seek recovery under no-fault. In response, proponents of no-fault insurance point out that automobile accidents are inevitable and that at-fault drivers therefore should not necessarily be punished; moreover, they note that the presence of liability insurance insulates reckless or negligent drivers from financial disincentives of litigation.
Also supporting no-fault insurance, in regions with high numbers of uninsured motorists, at-fault parties are often “judgment proof” (i.e., unable to pay their liability damages) in any case. Another criticism is that some no-fault jurisdictions have among the highest automobile-insurance premiums in the country, but this may be more a matter of effect than cause (i.e., the financial savings from no-fault may simply make it more popular in areas with higher automobile-accident risk). Furthermore, no-fault systems often grant "set" or "fixed" compensation for certain injuries regardless of the unique aspects of the injury or the individual injured. Workers compensation funds typically are run as "no fault" systems with usually a fixed schedule for compensation for various injuries.
The average US single family home is US$230K and the (S$290K) average size of such a home is 2500 sq feet[Link] - a landed home of the same size in Singapore costs more than $2M and something half the size in the form of an apartment costs $800K-$1M. We are often told that our fertility rate is falling because we are a developed country so people pursue qualification and careers rather than get married and have children.
"Partly, because it takes them longer to establish themselves (in a job)....people are staying in school longer nowadays. In the past, after their O -- Level and A -- Level, people start getting economically active, get a job, start a family and buy a flat. (Now) it is taking longer for young people to get to that stage because they feel they need better qualifications to get better jobs.....Elsewhere it has been shown that the demand of the job has increased and people need higher skills to enter the labour force and get a job before they start a family." - Lee Kuan Yew
When a person starts a family, the one thing he needs is housing otherwise he has to squeeze his family into his parents' place and you don't expect him squeeze himself, his wife and children with his parents. The key to higher fertility is affordable housing and the size of housing. The PAP govt has wasted time and money on other incentives that have done nothing but failed - they claim they are trying very hard to bump up the fertility rate as it falls to the lowest in the world. HDB even said they build smaller flat these days because Singapore families are getting smaller - they are actually putting us in a vicious cycle. I think Singaporeans are really tired and fed up of the PAP creating the problems then blaming it on Singaporeans ...then waste time and money on schemes that will not work. The next time some one from the tries to explain our low fertility and talk about solutions ....remember unless they home prices are at truly affordable levels, it is yet another waste of time and our country is further endangered by importing more people which causes population density and housing prices to go up.
The root cause of our problem has been PAP policies - first the "Stop At 2" policy and housing policies. The PAP has been using revenues from our public housing programme to fill up govt coffers [HDB paying less for land is raid on reserves: Mah] from the CPF and savings of ordinary Singaporeans. No other govt does this with public housing - linking it to the market and creating reserves - the primary purpose is to provide cheap and achieve positive social outcomes. This is not what happened in Singapore and the PAP housing policy has led to whole array of problems e.g. inability to accumulate enough to retire, low fertility, indebtedness and social inequality. Now the problems have grown to endanger ordinary Singaporeans - we have stop procreating, we are being replaced by foreigners and we do not have children to pass our values and culture to. Time is running out for the PAP govt to fix this and from what we have seen from them - they are not serious about it and Singaporeans are running out of patience.
14 March 2012
Editor, Forum Page
Straits Times
Time to widen the coverage of MedishieldMinister for Health Gan Kim Yong wishes to consult the public on hisproposal to extend Medishield to cover birth defects. He said that premiumrates will go up. This is likely to be a futile exercise, as some people who donot face this risk will be against any change that will add to their cost of living.As a national insurance scheme, Medishield should be extended to covermost types of conditions that are outside the control of the individuals. Havinga child with birth defects is clearly an uncontrollable risk that should be covered.The Minister should also look at other flaws in this system, such asthe large number of people who did not join this scheme for various reasons atthe time of its implementation and who now wish to be insured.Most of these people are older, and may have some chronic illnesses, which prevent them from being accepted under CPF's current underwriting rules. But they do pay a higher premium that is based on their age, and may be willing to pay a loading or surcharge. It is better to allow them to join Medishield and enjoy the benefit from the risk pooling, rather thanto let them remain outside the system.Those who are provided with medical benefits by their employers should be allowedto stay outside of Medishield, if they wish to, and join Medishield at a later datewhen they are not employed or not covered. This will avoid the wastage of doublecoverage, which add to the cost of living.As a national scheme, Medishield should adopt an underwriting approach that isdifferent from profit-making private insurers. The aim should be to provide coveragefor nearly everyone, rather than to select only the healthy lives to make a profit.
If the Minister is worried about increasing the premium, there are other ways of dealingwith this challenge, instead of restricting coverage. Some of the cost can be borneby the Government and more importantly, the medical charges should be regulated andnot allowed to escalate due to market failures.Tan Kin Lian