I have not blogged much about the recent spate of coverage in the Singapore newspapers, and even on the blogosphere, about my cancer and the fact that my insurer, Aviva, has refused to pay the claim, citing a pre-existing condition.
It has been suggested by various people that I was stupid, careless, a fraudster, irresponsible etc - sometimes in just those words. Other people have suggested that judging by the size of the tumour (9cm), ie the size of a tennis ball, I must have been a DollyPartonalike to have missed it, or am lying. I will not comment on the regrettable level of ignorance behind these statements.
I have kept quiet through it all, preferring to address only the larger issue of whether or not the pre-existing condition clause is fair, especially for major illnesses. Aviva does not state a time-frame for the pre-existing condition eg, pre-existing for 3 months prior to commencement date of policy. The integrated Shield plan scheme was only allowed by Medisave 19 months ago in July 2005. This means that all cancers are pre-existing under this particular scheme, according to Aviva's definition, as would be such diseases as diabetes, and Alzheimers.
The Aviva plan was listed on the MOH site. This would imply to most Singaporeans that the various policies are supported, and deemed appropriate, by MOH. This is the simple law of branding - you link your brand only to the ones you think are credible. By implication, MOH is sanctioning the Aviva policy and all its clauses.
As Singapore becomes a more complex and (perhaps) sophisticated society, we need to make sure that there is legislation to protect the common citizenry from such legal sleights of hand, if MOH and other government bodies do not seem to be doing this. No blame here, I guess it is not their job to police big business - although one begins to wonder just whose job it is.
Caveat emptor is all very well if the majority of the population is fully conversant in English. But this is not the case in Singapore, as even a scan of our MPs would reveal. How then can we expect the average above-40 HDB heartlander to 'beware the vendor'? Most insurance agents have not read all the terms and conditions of the policies they peddle, and certainly do not spend any time at all going through the various clauses with customers. Most insurance agents have only a certain level of education, although with the financial planning industry growing, this is changing.
Insurance is not the only element in this. Contracts which most people deal with on a regular basis, such as leases, housing sales and purchases agreements, contracts which come with your credit cards and checking accounts - all these are miles and miles of small print which most of us sign without a thorough read-through or assessment. We assume that one card is as good as any other, one bank is as good as any other. In other words, that MAS would have done its due diligence, and they are all much of a muchness.
My experience with Aviva shows that there are differences. And that when flaws and questionable business practices are brought to light, there is not exactly a rush for justice because we do not currently have the relevant legislation in place as a basis for this. They fly under the legal radar. The pre-existing condition clause would never fly in more sophisticated economies, such as those of Western Europe. In the Aviva home country of the UK, this clause is excluded (hahaha!) under the Fair Trade Act, I believe.
But in Singapore, it is quite ok. Can we therefore call ourselves 'sophisticated'? Certainly, Singaporeans travel the world as though we are. The government would have us believe the world could learn from the Singapore style of government and economic management. But I would suggest that the government, while being excessively heavy handed by continually telling us how to run our personal lives - even making sure for at least one day a year the entire family has dinner together - is remarkably lax when it comes to protecting us against big business bullying.
I now side-track into another area - that of foreign talent. I am all for equal opportunity, having had the good fortune to have worked in Shanghai. However, I wonder, given the higher education levels of Singaporeans, the increasing cosmopolitanism, why there are still outcries against foreign talent? Perhaps it has to do with the 60,000 still unemployed? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that even with these numbers, about half of the available jobs in the past year went to foreigners? Perhaps we see foreigners in companies here, both local and foreign doing jobs which Singaporeans could certainly do, and many times, even do better? Perhaps it comes from the headhunting community, which can recount tales of job openings which many Singaporeans are qualified to do but who, for some reason, are refused by prospective employers?
In the early days of the Singapore economy, we gave tax breaks to companies which transferred their technology to Singapore. I suggest now that we look at human technology. Unless the government legislates, as do many other 'sophisticated' nations, that companies have to 'prove' that no Singaporean can do the job on offer to justify their need for an expatriate. And that whatever the role, there should be a program in place to 'transfer' the technology behind that role to a Singaporean within, say, three years.
What has this to do with the insurance case? Not alot, unless you look at the common denominator, which is the government's role in protecting the lot of the common Singaporean in the face of increasing global competition - not outside Singapore, but right here on home soil. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is why we elect our MPs, is it not?
It has been suggested by various people that I was stupid, careless, a fraudster, irresponsible etc - sometimes in just those words. Other people have suggested that judging by the size of the tumour (9cm), ie the size of a tennis ball, I must have been a DollyPartonalike to have missed it, or am lying. I will not comment on the regrettable level of ignorance behind these statements.
I have kept quiet through it all, preferring to address only the larger issue of whether or not the pre-existing condition clause is fair, especially for major illnesses. Aviva does not state a time-frame for the pre-existing condition eg, pre-existing for 3 months prior to commencement date of policy. The integrated Shield plan scheme was only allowed by Medisave 19 months ago in July 2005. This means that all cancers are pre-existing under this particular scheme, according to Aviva's definition, as would be such diseases as diabetes, and Alzheimers.
The Aviva plan was listed on the MOH site. This would imply to most Singaporeans that the various policies are supported, and deemed appropriate, by MOH. This is the simple law of branding - you link your brand only to the ones you think are credible. By implication, MOH is sanctioning the Aviva policy and all its clauses.
As Singapore becomes a more complex and (perhaps) sophisticated society, we need to make sure that there is legislation to protect the common citizenry from such legal sleights of hand, if MOH and other government bodies do not seem to be doing this. No blame here, I guess it is not their job to police big business - although one begins to wonder just whose job it is.
Caveat emptor is all very well if the majority of the population is fully conversant in English. But this is not the case in Singapore, as even a scan of our MPs would reveal. How then can we expect the average above-40 HDB heartlander to 'beware the vendor'? Most insurance agents have not read all the terms and conditions of the policies they peddle, and certainly do not spend any time at all going through the various clauses with customers. Most insurance agents have only a certain level of education, although with the financial planning industry growing, this is changing.
Insurance is not the only element in this. Contracts which most people deal with on a regular basis, such as leases, housing sales and purchases agreements, contracts which come with your credit cards and checking accounts - all these are miles and miles of small print which most of us sign without a thorough read-through or assessment. We assume that one card is as good as any other, one bank is as good as any other. In other words, that MAS would have done its due diligence, and they are all much of a muchness.
My experience with Aviva shows that there are differences. And that when flaws and questionable business practices are brought to light, there is not exactly a rush for justice because we do not currently have the relevant legislation in place as a basis for this. They fly under the legal radar. The pre-existing condition clause would never fly in more sophisticated economies, such as those of Western Europe. In the Aviva home country of the UK, this clause is excluded (hahaha!) under the Fair Trade Act, I believe.
But in Singapore, it is quite ok. Can we therefore call ourselves 'sophisticated'? Certainly, Singaporeans travel the world as though we are. The government would have us believe the world could learn from the Singapore style of government and economic management. But I would suggest that the government, while being excessively heavy handed by continually telling us how to run our personal lives - even making sure for at least one day a year the entire family has dinner together - is remarkably lax when it comes to protecting us against big business bullying.
I now side-track into another area - that of foreign talent. I am all for equal opportunity, having had the good fortune to have worked in Shanghai. However, I wonder, given the higher education levels of Singaporeans, the increasing cosmopolitanism, why there are still outcries against foreign talent? Perhaps it has to do with the 60,000 still unemployed? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that even with these numbers, about half of the available jobs in the past year went to foreigners? Perhaps we see foreigners in companies here, both local and foreign doing jobs which Singaporeans could certainly do, and many times, even do better? Perhaps it comes from the headhunting community, which can recount tales of job openings which many Singaporeans are qualified to do but who, for some reason, are refused by prospective employers?
In the early days of the Singapore economy, we gave tax breaks to companies which transferred their technology to Singapore. I suggest now that we look at human technology. Unless the government legislates, as do many other 'sophisticated' nations, that companies have to 'prove' that no Singaporean can do the job on offer to justify their need for an expatriate. And that whatever the role, there should be a program in place to 'transfer' the technology behind that role to a Singaporean within, say, three years.
What has this to do with the insurance case? Not alot, unless you look at the common denominator, which is the government's role in protecting the lot of the common Singaporean in the face of increasing global competition - not outside Singapore, but right here on home soil. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is why we elect our MPs, is it not?
posted by Simone @ 11:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home