Monday, 6 June 2011

Singapore’s Declining Birth Rate; Strategy to Reverse the Trend

Predictably, the vast majority of responses to the letter I am about to write about either described its author as being facetious or pointed out what he or she was proposing would fail to benefit any more than a very few Singaporeans.   

Given that none of the schemes introduced by the government so far appear to have worked to reverse a decline that’s been recorded in Singapore’s birth rate, the writer speculated that perhaps what’s needed is a scheme that’s totally unfair and risky to the individual – namely, a kind of lottery.

Out of all the people who had babies within a certain time frame, just a very few of them would receive not the same boring old $20,000 bonus all Singaporeans are currently entitled to receive should they happen to have a baby.  Instead, he or she proposed, they might receive a sum of money that could perhaps change their lives forever - $1M? $2M? $5M?  Such a scheme might be paid for out of monies that are currently spent by the government on baby bonuses that are too small to seriously impact potential breeders’ decision making processes.

Such a scheme would only serve to benefit a very few Singaporeans, of course; it could well be that the writer did not expect his or her proposal to be taken seriously.  Here at Singapore Life Alert, we considered it to be one of the most brilliant ideas we had ever heard, however; brilliant because it seems to us far more likely persuade reluctant Singaporeans to breed than any affordable amount of baby bonuses could. 

The problem with the baby bonus scheme, or so it has always appeared to us, is that its very existence encourages Singaporeans to imagine it wise to factor affordability into their baby-making plans.  The problem with that, of course, is that, when viewed from a financial perspective, children are hardly likely to ever seem 'affordable'. 

Kids can be a lot of fun; they can and should appear as the most important things in a parent’s life.  Unfortunately though, there’s very little point in trying to persuade a person who cannot afford to buy a Ferrari that having a kid might represent far better value for money.  Even a person who can afford to buy a Ferrari might quickly recognise that, whilst it’s possible to predict exactly how much a Ferrari is likely to cost over the long term, the cost of raising a child is far more difficult to estimate.  For Singaporeans to be persuaded to breed then, they need to be discouraged from being financially pragmatic and encouraged to throw financial caution to the wind.


Linked articles:  to come
Recommended websites:  We would very much like to provide a link to the original letter that inspired us to post this piece.  Unfortunately, we can’t seem to find it at the time of posting.  We welcome hearing from anyone who might be able to tell us where it is.

Diagnosis, and its Impact on Treatment and the Cost of Treatment; Laws Pertaining to Private Medical Insurance

More out of obduracy than out of any sense of hope, I have just now finished writing a second letter of appeal against my son’s medical insurer’s refusal to reimburse the cost of surgery he needed to correct a deformity in his left foot.

Sunday, 5 June 2011

Co-insurance and/or Exclusion of Disorders Acquired after the Inception Date of Private Medical Insurance; Chronic Disease; Fibroids

Laymen might be forgiven for assuming private medical insurance providers are required to provide cover against any medical condition that hasn’t been specifically excluded under its general terms and conditions.  They aren’t though.

Late Diagnosis of Mild Spastic Diplegia/Cerebral Palsy; Toe-Walking in Teenagers

It required a team of 3 highly experienced specialists to diagnose our son as having Spastic Diplegia, mostly because his particular Spastic Diplegia is so mild that he did not exhibit any symptoms of it until he was eleven or twelve years old already.