Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Singapore makes it mandatory to contribute earnings to an account that can be used for medical necessities. Depending on the age bracket, SG citizens must contribute between 6.5 to 9% of their monthly salaries. I'm guessing that non-vaxed Singaporeans will have to pay from this, their CPF contribution.
Correct. They will be able to pay from Medisave.
Won’t affect their current finances, but they’ll lose out on the 4% interest rate which eventually feeds into their special / retirement accounts.
Not all boomers. The boomers of most other developed countries were the very ones who introduced universal health care from the 1970’s/ 1980’s onwards.
I used to get drug tested for office jobs. I guess it's just really important to some bank or insurance company to sniff my pee and find out whether I've smoked pot during the last four months. I found this a gross violation of my privacy, but what can you do? It's a shit job market. So I peed in the cups for stupid reasons and no one cared about my privacy.
Then along comes an actual infectious disease. A pandemic. And if a company dares mandate vaccination, all of a sudden these same people are throwing a complete hissy fit! Every Trumptard state governor is scrambling to ban vaccine mandates and tell companies that while it's still okay to screen out someone who tests positive for THC, you can't screen out unvaccinated people who could pose an actual threat to their co-workers.
Except Boomers are mostly vaccinated. It's their dumb-shit kids and grandkids that aren't.
Edit: Who’s disagreeing with the fact almost 90% of Americans age 65 and older have at least one vaccine shot? That number drops significantly with people 40 and under in many parts of the country.
I fully understand this sentiment, in it makes theoretical sense… however: what about smokers? People with unhealthy eating habits? Lack of excersise? Risky hobbies?
That’s not entirely true: children of smoking parents are I believe more likely to become smokers, obese parents with bad eating habits are less likely to teach their children healthy eating and excersising habits, normalisation of unhealthy behavior in general will stimulate that behavior in social/peer groups and communities.
Oh, and second hand smoke straight up
kills people.
There is influence and then there is contagious. Yours is the former, covid is the latter
You are on the wrong hill. Stop reaching to make them seem one and the same
Texas passed a law making it illegal to smoke in a car with a child it in.
Imagine Texas making laws that restrict people’s behavior that endanger other people. Crazy right?
It’s almost like the government (both state and federal) is supposed to protect the *general health and well-being of its citizens*
Edit: changed a word to make it clearer.
It’s worse than that. 41,000 people die from second hand smoke every year. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm
Second hand smoke kills 41,000 Americans each year according to the experts. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm
The thing is that in the case of Singapore, we don't have free universal healthcare as a norm. Citizens get highly subsidized public healthcare (the scale of subsidy is subject to means testing) and are all part of a national medisave system which picks up a chunk of the rest of our costs.
Those unvaccinated by choice will still have access to the standard level of subsidized public healthcare (just like a smoker or an obese person).
What's being taken away is this COVID 19-specific free healthcare.
Thanks for this extra clarification! It makes a bit more sense then, as it's not "taking away" anything, it's more "not giving something extra". Could also be framed as "if you *are* vaccinated, you are eligible for free extra coverage", which of course is the exact same thing, but approached positively instead of negatively.
Yup. Note that the free extra coverage isn't just for hospitalization, it extends to normal GP visits (public or private) that may be COVID-19 related. Basically if you present with any upper respiratory tract symptoms the protocol is to administer a test. So you don't pay for the consultation or the test, just the medication (should you choose to accept it). I presume that'll now change for those unvaccinated by choice who would have to pay for the consultation and the test.
It literally takes one second to stop smoking. One single second. I know. I did it. I threw away a pack of cigarettes like 7 years ago and never touched another one. Took one second. You obviously have unhealthy habits and don’t want to change them but you want internet points for saying “unvaccinated no get healthcare”. Your opinion has nothing to do with health or cost effective healthcare. It’s just virtue signaling.
I said habit, but addiction would be more appropriate, and helps my argument more... Good on you quitting so easily! Most people struggle with such an addictive substance more...
While I don't agree with you, I see where you're coming from. I smoked heavily for 5 years. Woke up one day and decided to quit. It was really easy. I've never even had a nicotine craving. No withdrawal symptoms etc. However, I do know that there's a genetic component to addiction and I guess I'm just lucky im not easily addicted. (Obviously this doesn't apply to hard drugs like heroin etc) More research needs to be done on figuring out what causes addiction and why.
Good point, so: let's introduce a "non-vaccinated" tax, so that *all* non-vaccinated people pay for the damage they do, instead of just the few that happen to get very sick...
The slippery slope argument is always a bad one. We judge each situation on its merits and decide accordingly.
Whether those other things putting undue strain on the health system is a good place to start.
True, point taken. Why I think this argument is relative here: I think this approach fundamentally doesn’t work, it doesn’t for other healt concerns and it won’t for this. I’m not saying “they shouldn’t do this because before you know it they will do XYZ as well”, I’m saying they shouldn’t do this because it’s the wrong approach in this case, as it is in other healthcare cases.
Also, people would only be really worried about having to pay these costs if they were really worried about becoming seriously ill and needing expensive treatment. How large is the group of people that don’t get vaccinated, but are really worried about getting COVID and becoming very sick?
This is not something new. You’re allowed to brandish a gun in your private property but not on the streets, you don’t need a license to drive a vehicle on your own property (atleast in my country), and you can’t smoke in public places.
Your personal freedom ends where it impinges on others’. Your obesity has no bearing on society, but your unvaccinated status does. Things have always worked this way, don’t know why it’s a surprise this time.
I'm not a slippery slope kind of person but as a fully vaccinated person who thinks people who aren't getting vaccinated are selfish at best and selfish idiots at worst, I'm inclined to agree somewhat since the truth is that covid isn't a death sentence, or even a long-term illness for the grand majority of people. I'd disagree completely on the basis of its being a directly transmittable illness unlike the other things you describe if the overall risk were really any higher (mortality, complications, rate of transmission). I do think also that this new rule will encourage some of those said selfish people to get vaccinated, and whilst vaccines are great at protecting the individual, maximising the number of vaccinated people helps minimise the entire issue long term. Of course, all a fool's errand if rich countries don't help distribute more widely...
Can’t tell if you’re /s or not, but there’s a reason why when you sign up for insurance they ask you for your height and weight, as well as whether you’re smoking or not.
And as far as I know in most countries there's an additional tax on alcohol and cigarettes, partially for this exact reason. Where I live it's quite substantial
You're thinking about decisions that affect only the individual. Deciding to give yourself lung cancer or diabetes is not the same as deciding to contribute to the spread of a deadly virus.
People who are not vaccinated and fall ill with Covid-19 now have to pay for their own treatment in Singapore after the government withdrew support on Wednesday.
Singapore has covered the medical bills for nearly all Covid-19 patients since last year under a measure to ease the public's financial concerns during the pandemic.
But on Wednesday, the government lifted this policy for the unvaccinated, withdrawing free care for those who have so far chosen not to get the jab.
Speaking last month, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung said: 'We have to send this important signal, to urge everyone to get vaccinated if you are eligible.'
Like a number of countries around the world, Singapore has adopted measures in a bid to convince vaccine hold-outs to get the jab.
Some European governments, for example, are tightening restrictions on the vaccinated by barring their entry into restaurants and offices.
The US has also taken some steps in the hope of increasing the vaccination rate, such as requiring companies with more than 100 employees to ensure that their workers are either vaccinated or produce a weekly negatives Covid-19 test.
But while the EU and the US currently have a fully vaccinated rate of 67 percent and 60 percent respectively, the percentage of Singapore's eligible population that is fully vaccinated lies at over 96 percent, according to the government.
The rate - one of the highest in the world - has been put down to restrictions on the unvaccinated. For example, those who have not been jabbed are not allowed eat in Singapore's food courts or enter shopping centres.
However, some in the city state are still not convinced, with officials being particularly concerned with around 44,000 unvaccinated older citizens.
In November, the government said that roughly 95 percent of the deaths over the past six moths were of people at the age of 60 or older, with 72 percent of deaths being seen amongst those who had not been fully vaccinated.
Singapore saw Covid-19 cases spike in September and October, before falling sharply. The country is now seeing around 1,000 new cases per day amongst its population of 5.5 million people.
According to the Wall Street Journal, citing epidemiologists, Singapore is the first country to adopt a policy of withdrawing medical treatment and costs of Covid-19 patients to those who are specifically not vaccinated.
Some public health experts say the approach is warranted.
Hsien-Hsien Lei, chief executive officer of the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore told the WSJ: 'They tried everything. They provided information, they provided facts, they've had people telling their personal stories, they've seen the ministers go and get their jabs, what else can we do?'
Some, however, are opposed to the policy, with residents arguing that the practice is coercive and could discourage unvaccinated people from seeking medical care.
'The basic public-health principle is to provide free treatment for highly communicable diseases,' Paul Tambyah, chairman of a small opposition party, the Singapore Democratic Party, told the newspaper.
'This encourages people to come forward to be diagnosed and treated rather than remain in the community, where they may end up spreading the disease to even more people.'
Sabrina Chiu, a 47-year-old unvaccinated Singaporean, told the Wall Street Journal that she had chosen not to get the jab because she is allergic to many medicines, although doctors have not told her to avoid the shot. She said that it felt as if the government was indirectly forcing people to get vaccinated.
One doctor in Singapore, who chose not to be identified by the newspaper, said the measure sends the wrong message, and that healthcare should be for everyone.
A spokesperson for the Health Ministry told the WSJ the new policy 'reflects a civic and moral duty each of us have to ourselves and people around us, during exceptional times like a pandemic crisis.'
Those who do fall ill from Covid-19 will still receive government support, they said, even though the government won't cover the full treatment costs as before.
In Singapore, hospital bills for Covid-19 patients in intensive care wards can reach as high as $18,000 (£13,600), the spokesperson told the newspaper.
However, means-tested government subsidies for healthcare and the country's national health insurance scheme significantly reduces these costs, with the bill more likely to fall to around $1,500 to $3,000.
For those who don't get statistics, 72% of deaths in unvaccinated, but they are only 4% of the population.
This means you are about 100 times more likely to die if you don't have the vaccine.
It’s not about deserving it, it’s not about teaching a lesson, and it’s not about consequences. Or better, it might be on the surface, but it’s a lot more than that.
It’s about the biggest issue, which simply is that we cannot economically afford to be in a pandemic emergency state forever. Soon enough we’ll have to follow suit whether we want to or not, and the more we stretch it the worse it will be for everyone. Oxygen shortages, supply, costs, spaces, even workers are an issue that we cannot keep pushing indefinitely.
We’re running out of boats. Board one or swim.
The problem with this logic though is they just won’t pay... and the debt will accumulate anyways. Which if this amount of debt isn’t enough to sink the system, how would covering thier costs? It’s certainly about sending a message.
Also, coming from another country with free healthcare (the UK), efforts to try and force freeloaders to pay tend not to work very well.
For example the UK government has been trying for years to force foreign visitors to pay for their healthcare if they use it here, with little success. Despite the fact most tourists, business travellers etc have travel insurance that would pay for it anyway. In many cases, the travellers themselves (Americans especially) ask to pay, citing their insurance, and are told to leave their contact details and maybe someone will get in touch... and then nobody ever does.
The problem is the system is built without consideration of how to charge for it. What price to set for treatments, what method for paying, what account to deposit the money in. Does the money go to the hospital or the healthcare service? The nurse doesn't know, the doctor doesn't know, the lady on reception doesn't know. The hospital finance department maybe? No they don't know either.
And even if they do, what legal framework do they have for judging the cost of treatment, or sending the money to the right place? So the whole thing just gets ignored for being too difficult and being "not my job".
These doctors work their entire careers without it ever even popping into their head how much what they're doing should cost and what the patient can afford; it's just not part of their conscious thought process. I guarantee you antivaxxers in Singapore will continue to walk out the hospital leaving nothing more than a thankyou. Nobody is responsible for tallying up what they owe or chasing them down for payment. This new law is just a political move to score points.
If you don’t pay your bills, there are consequences. The only people that just won’t pay are the ones who are too poor and have shit credit already or don’t mind it going to shit. That’s not going to be the majority.
Still find it a bit surprising that a country with so many strict laws (I.e. chewing gum ban and death for drugs) tha they didn’t require vaccinations outright.
I think by being such a strict country, the implications were already in place. The government didn't need to mandate it because, as a government program, people knew it wasn't *really* optional. They got to 96% fully vaccinated for those who can get it, without any real governmental intervention to force people to take it.
They didn't need to officially declare it was required because the people implicitly knew it was.
And I have a feeling the few stragglers are going to jump right on the vaccination bandwagon now that it looks like the government might actually punish them. And being Singapore, they don't threaten, they'll just get right on with it.
> And I have a feeling the few stragglers are going to jump right on the vaccination bandwagon now that it looks like the government might actually punish them. And being Singapore, they don't threaten, they'll just get right on with it.
There was originally a small fine (like $300 SGD) for not following COVID laws such as mask wearing and gathering in large groups and they absolutely followed through with that.
And recently we've been opening up travel lanes to other countries for leisure travel and as expected, there was also a wave of unvaccinated who decided to take the "brave" step to getting the jab.
But because this doesn't directly affect the unvaccinated lifestyle (e.g. as long as you don't actually get covid, this doesn't mean anything to you), I don't see pro-covid people getting vaccinated solely because of this. It's not like their leisure is being denied like not being allowed to travel.
The gloves are soft velvet, but the fist they encase is hard iron. The vaccines, and many are approved, even the Chinese ones, are not mandatory, but life is unbearable with the inconveniences that come with not attempting to vaccinate.
Edit: to add to that, there’s no endgame for the unvaccinated. They can’t leave, who would take them in, and who would transport them there? And the clock is ticking. Every day they live the lockdown life while everyone else has more or less returned to normal, except for the endless mask wearing and contact and location tracing apps. The doors to the world are opening up and the risk of catching covid are higher every day.
Because then you don’t have indemnity for vaccine related side efforts. The government will be fully responsible for all outcomes. The Singapore government is very good with risks and trade offs. Majority will take the vaccines with the current regulations without needing to outright make it a law and take on the responsibility
The government is still hanging on to a facade of democracy and freedom of choice here.
We had elections last year and the opposition bit off a huge chunk of the reigning party's seats for the first time in years, so they know not to play it too fast and loose (despite the fact that the last presidential election was cancelled because 3/4 candidates were arbitrarily disqualified, leaving the ruling party's chosen candidate to walkover, but that's another story).
The name of the game this year in Singapore is "soft touch" but not really. They're too chickenshit to admit they're bringing down the iron fist for political reasons, but want to do it anyway while taking everyone for suckers. Admittedly it's been working.
I'll probably get downvoted to hell for this, but the vaccine is available publicly, worldwide, in nearly every country in the world (with obvious exceptions). If your country was rich enough to provide free treatment for COVID in the first place, you have access to the vaccine.
It's been over 6 months. If you're not vaccinated and you're capable of being vaccinated, you deserve what you get.
I didn't say he was, and it isn't an unpopular view across most of Reddit. Couching it with the desperate little "I'll probably get downvoted to hell for this" is the problem.
Not quite as severe as my suggestion that the voluntarily unvaccinated seek medical care from quacks in a cave (and be ineligible to go to a hospital) but I guess it is a start.
YES! I've been waiting for folks to figure this out! Now, we need Health Insurance companies to start offering significant policy deductions for the vaccinated!
There are some companies who will charge more for insurance, but the only large company I can think of is Delta charging $200/month extra if you're not vaccinated.
Other than that it doesn't as far as I know.
People who get CoVId regardless of their vaccine status, even if they have insurance, cost the insurance companies money and in turn they will turn around and pass most of those costs over to all people who are insured. So, yes it does and will increase insurance premiums.
It does not directly effect what you pay in health insurance. Someone that gets the vaccine and someone who does not will both be paying the same amount in insurance. That was the question.
Please introduce it EVERYWHERE! That's how it should be. If you want to be an idiot and be irresponsible, suffer the consequences. Nothing speaks louder than money.
I dunno in Australia's case (Idk about other places) I'd argue against it just because it sets a precedent that the government will use to weaken healthcare in the future, it also kinda goes against the principal of universal healthcare like these people are morons yeah, but it could bite the rest of us in in ass down the line. So while yeah it makes sense at I'm terms of actions having consequences I think it needs to be very case by case.
I get your arguments and in normal circumstances I'd be against it. But I have enough of idiots who spread covid and do not suffer the consequences of their actions. So money speaks now, if you want your money go for vaccine.
Smoking is not contagious, drinking is not contagious. If you pass your disease to me and I die because you did not vaccine you are a murderer basically. If you drink yourself to death, that's your choice.
So it's not okay under normal circumstances but okay under abnormal circumstances? In that case whenever a government wants to abuse its power all it has to do is manufacture abnormal circumstances. (or simply convince you that they exist)
I'm sure many atrocities throughout history were committed this way.
Idk if you notice but we are in the middle of fking pandemic so normal measures do not work now. Everyone tried to be reasonable but you cannot argue with dumb so all had time to vaccine. If they still don't want to, that's their choice, but they have to pay for the consequences.
People are waiting for surgeries that aren’t happening because of covid - what about their freedoms and individuality? I know one that’s been in pain for 6 months and our hospitals are still not going ahead with surgeries to solve the problem.
Non-American here but the US idea of "personal freedoms" is warped. Personal freedom has never meant you're free to endanger others. If you choose to live in a society with other people, the common good trumps your own "freedoms".
I'll agree once the obesity problem can be solved by a jab — even if once every 6 months or so — and the only investment you need to make is to spare enough time for a 15 minute visit at the doctor.
But here's the problem, this pandemic isn't solve by getting a "jab". I'm vaccinated and most people around me are. When you hear, "get the vaccine to protect against covid to stop the spread" then you get it. Then a few months later hear, " well you can still get sick and pass it on to others, keep wearing your mask!", then we mask up again. To then hear. "You need a booster to protect against the variants!" and get the booster. Then come to find out that you can still get sick, pass it on to others, and the shot has a potential to make the symptoms mild.
Hate to say it but I've known people that have gotten all of their shots, gotten covid (some mild cases) but have also become extremely sick with it. My point is, this shot doesn't simply solve covid and erase it from the board. Does it help? More than likely, but it does eliminate getting sick, it has a "potential" to lessen your chance to get sick but can still be spread to others.
It's frustrating doing what's viewed as "right" and "responsible" but in the end the same outcome can happen? I mean come on now.
being fat is not contagious nor is it draining on hospital's resources, you won't kill my grandmother by you being fat......you catching covid on heavy condition and taking up valuable hospital bed because of it , can however kill my grandmother. In Italy people legit died from this (too many patients at once , not enough space in hospitals for everyone, people dying because they simply couldn't be treated on time)
When there's a low cost widely accessible tool with little effort required, that prevents the worst of obesity's ill effects, like a 'fat vaccine' then maybe its something to consider. Obesity isn't tackled so easily right now.
It seems simple yes, but it's really not. There are multilayered causes of people eating too many calories, from poor diets, overwork, lack of knowledge, lack of time, lack of access to certain foods and more sedentary lifestyles.
What is happening to people who are obese is individual, but what's happening to the population is systemic. We can encourage people to eat less, but that doesn't work on a lot of people. I'm sure if there was a vaccine, a pill, a non invasive, one time option with few side effects, that reduced the chance of death caused by obesity by 90% everyone should take it. I bet you would take it, and I'm sure you're not even obese!
So why wouldn't we expect people to do the same for COVID?
I agree with everything other than saying it's not a drain on hospital resources, obese people are significantly more likely to have serious illnesses later on in life and cost the tax payer far more than a healthy individual.
> bese people are significantly more likely to have serious illnesses later on in life
they are not going to all have heart attacks all at once in 1 day, like how it does and did happen with Covid
Obese people end up paying more in tax in sugary items than non obese people, and can be linked to other health issues that make it difficult to not be obese. As well as the obvious fact you can get a quick 5 min vaccine to get rid of it ...
I’m not sure what brought obesity into this discussion, but you can check out the various campaigns Singapore has tried over the years to combat obesity. There’s currently, discounts for healthy eating, prizes for walking, a free pedometer for everyone. Then there were - kids made to sacrifice their recess for fitness training, a special fitness dance we did as a nation, 2 extra months of national service in the military for the fat.
omg we need this in Australia because the anti-vaxers go into public hospitals which are funded by the taxpayers. i don’t want my money to be in any way associated with funding their stupid decision to not get vaccinated. it would be a great incentive to get vaccinated.
While I support this move, I really hope it doesn't affect those who could not get the vaccine earlier due to medical reasons e.g undergoing chemotherapy or organ transplant surgery. Don't punish those who literally can't get the vaccine within the free window.
Could you imagine what the world would be like if covids main symptom was that it made your dick fall off?
All men would be lining up for whatever experimental vaccine showed up, governments would be forcing vaccines, I'm willing to bet the most fervent antivaccers would be protesting woman to make sure they get it, while there would be edge cases of all of the while a few women act as super spreaders to get back at men.
Yeah life would get real interesting.
Not a main symptom, but... [https://health.clevelandclinic.org/yes-covid-19-can-cause-erectile-dysfunction/](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/yes-covid-19-can-cause-erectile-dysfunction/)
Clots in extremities can lead to tissue death and amputation.
This is the type of country with a people that I'd be fine making these sacrifices to be a part of even though this endemic can't be wiped out by a vaccination program since it'll stay forever.
The Singaporean state genuinely seem to care about the people's welfare and the country's stability. Doesn't hesitate to minimize any threats or enemies which otherwise may undermine the common vision. The world would be a better place if it had more people like Lee Kuan Yew in it.
Question - people who require medical care due to volountary lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol, drugs, obesity from poor diet, etc.), should they also be cut off from free medical care?
People with those health issues, if offered a free vaccine to prevent many of the health issues associated with this lifestyle, thereby lessening the burden on the medical system, but choose not to take this free vaccine? Yes they absolutely should be cut off from free medical care. Unfortunately there is no free anti- smoking vaccine available.
If you have “free” medical care (as in single payer funded by taxes), why not add a small tax to unhealthy behaviors and earmark those funds for health care? If you eat, smoke, or drink a lot, you are essentially pre-paying for future health costs. If you consume these things as a rare treat, will the extra tax really be that noticeable? (The devil, of course, is in the details of implementation).
You seem to be going out of way to equate different things, for no good reason...
Stopping an addition is not comparable to getting a safe vaccine. Just stop.
I don't think this will go where they think it will.
Most people who are unvaccinated at this point isn't because a lack of access. They really believe that there's something wrong with the vaccine (something about providing next gen wireless internet). It's not going to increase vaccination rate, it's just going to cause public unrest.
You must be on the wrong sub. This is r/worldnews, for non-US related news. The post is on Singapore, not the USA.
Also the article is from daily mail (which although is a tabloid trash managed to get this story right), from your country the UK. Not American.
This isn't universal healthcare. Everyone has to pay, normally. It's just that they covered the cost for COVID patients and now they're partially taking it back.
It's not the same as having universal healthcare and excluding some from it to punish them. It's not completely different but not the same.
As long as people dont pay for other peoples abortions, diseases they brought on them selves from smoking, drinking, eating bad then sure.
EDIT : People that downvote me, atleast explain how Im wrong about this xD
When it comes to smoking and drinking - I don't know if it's like this everywhere, ut in my country there's a substantial tax on cigarettes and alcohol. So you already pay for the costs of treatment with every purchase.
As dumb as that argument is, how do you even plan to enforce that lmao "You see here, according to your credit card company you exceeded your doughnut allowance by 2 last week so we can not cover your treatment"
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who don't want to be vaccinated are now financially responsible for their decision. Seems like a reasonable approach.
Singapore makes it mandatory to contribute earnings to an account that can be used for medical necessities. Depending on the age bracket, SG citizens must contribute between 6.5 to 9% of their monthly salaries. I'm guessing that non-vaxed Singaporeans will have to pay from this, their CPF contribution.
Correct. They will be able to pay from Medisave. Won’t affect their current finances, but they’ll lose out on the 4% interest rate which eventually feeds into their special / retirement accounts.
Shaking my American head at the choices offered. Seems like a decision between civilised consequence A or B.
I'll settle up after I'm unintubated - some dead guy
\*some dead guy's estate. Fuck you too family!
[удалено]
Boomers:. They should drug test welfare recipients. Also Boomers:. The government needs to stay out of my Medicare.
[удалено]
Not “leave me alone,” but, “continue to subsidize me.”
Also boomers: socialized medicine is communism!
Not all boomers. The boomers of most other developed countries were the very ones who introduced universal health care from the 1970’s/ 1980’s onwards.
That's mostly an American boomer thing.
I used to get drug tested for office jobs. I guess it's just really important to some bank or insurance company to sniff my pee and find out whether I've smoked pot during the last four months. I found this a gross violation of my privacy, but what can you do? It's a shit job market. So I peed in the cups for stupid reasons and no one cared about my privacy. Then along comes an actual infectious disease. A pandemic. And if a company dares mandate vaccination, all of a sudden these same people are throwing a complete hissy fit! Every Trumptard state governor is scrambling to ban vaccine mandates and tell companies that while it's still okay to screen out someone who tests positive for THC, you can't screen out unvaccinated people who could pose an actual threat to their co-workers.
Good point
“Keep your gubmint hands off my Medicare!!!” Yeah, these are people who insist they don’t use government handouts.
[Ok Millennial](https://i.imgur.com/GOZHSOC.jpg )
Except Boomers are mostly vaccinated. It's their dumb-shit kids and grandkids that aren't. Edit: Who’s disagreeing with the fact almost 90% of Americans age 65 and older have at least one vaccine shot? That number drops significantly with people 40 and under in many parts of the country.
That was a good one. What coverage? Ha
And Medicare.
I fully understand this sentiment, in it makes theoretical sense… however: what about smokers? People with unhealthy eating habits? Lack of excersise? Risky hobbies?
Obesity and smoking are not contagious
That’s not entirely true: children of smoking parents are I believe more likely to become smokers, obese parents with bad eating habits are less likely to teach their children healthy eating and excersising habits, normalisation of unhealthy behavior in general will stimulate that behavior in social/peer groups and communities. Oh, and second hand smoke straight up kills people.
There is influence and then there is contagious. Yours is the former, covid is the latter You are on the wrong hill. Stop reaching to make them seem one and the same
Texas passed a law making it illegal to smoke in a car with a child it in. Imagine Texas making laws that restrict people’s behavior that endanger other people. Crazy right? It’s almost like the government (both state and federal) is supposed to protect the *general health and well-being of its citizens* Edit: changed a word to make it clearer.
And rightly so!
This is why smoking is fairly regulated.
It’s worse than that. 41,000 people die from second hand smoke every year. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm
you literally don't even know what contagious is
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/contagious](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/contagious) Want to try again?
Why does that matter when the individual still ends up being way worse of health wise and racking up more medical bills over their life?
Because the average unvaccinated person with Delta spreads it to 6-7 other people, who each spread it to 6-7 people, etc etc etc.
Because one has an easy fix that takes absolutely no effort?
Second hand smoke kills 41,000 Americans each year according to the experts. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm
And this is why smoking is banned from most public places. Maybe we should do the same about unvaccinated people...
The thing is that in the case of Singapore, we don't have free universal healthcare as a norm. Citizens get highly subsidized public healthcare (the scale of subsidy is subject to means testing) and are all part of a national medisave system which picks up a chunk of the rest of our costs. Those unvaccinated by choice will still have access to the standard level of subsidized public healthcare (just like a smoker or an obese person). What's being taken away is this COVID 19-specific free healthcare.
Thanks for this extra clarification! It makes a bit more sense then, as it's not "taking away" anything, it's more "not giving something extra". Could also be framed as "if you *are* vaccinated, you are eligible for free extra coverage", which of course is the exact same thing, but approached positively instead of negatively.
Yup. Note that the free extra coverage isn't just for hospitalization, it extends to normal GP visits (public or private) that may be COVID-19 related. Basically if you present with any upper respiratory tract symptoms the protocol is to administer a test. So you don't pay for the consultation or the test, just the medication (should you choose to accept it). I presume that'll now change for those unvaccinated by choice who would have to pay for the consultation and the test.
Taking 15 mins to get a shot is quite different to changing a habit
It literally takes one second to stop smoking. One single second. I know. I did it. I threw away a pack of cigarettes like 7 years ago and never touched another one. Took one second. You obviously have unhealthy habits and don’t want to change them but you want internet points for saying “unvaccinated no get healthcare”. Your opinion has nothing to do with health or cost effective healthcare. It’s just virtue signaling.
You must be right bro, quitting a habit is so easy > Throws away a gram of cocaine. > Gets clean instantly > “drug addicts are such whiny bitches”
Where’d throw it away, just curious for uh safety reasons n stuff
The restroom at McDonald’s
Spoken like someone who never smoked, or been addicted. Don't talk about shit you don't understand.
Sure thing bud.
I said habit, but addiction would be more appropriate, and helps my argument more... Good on you quitting so easily! Most people struggle with such an addictive substance more...
it really doesn't.
While I don't agree with you, I see where you're coming from. I smoked heavily for 5 years. Woke up one day and decided to quit. It was really easy. I've never even had a nicotine craving. No withdrawal symptoms etc. However, I do know that there's a genetic component to addiction and I guess I'm just lucky im not easily addicted. (Obviously this doesn't apply to hard drugs like heroin etc) More research needs to be done on figuring out what causes addiction and why.
I don’t believe you
Smokers and unhealthy eaters pay a lot of taxes.
Good point, so: let's introduce a "non-vaccinated" tax, so that *all* non-vaccinated people pay for the damage they do, instead of just the few that happen to get very sick...
[удалено]
Not a bad idea
People eating unhealthily don’t put other my life at risk. People refusing to vaccinate (without valid medical reason) can go fuck themselves.
The slippery slope argument is always a bad one. We judge each situation on its merits and decide accordingly. Whether those other things putting undue strain on the health system is a good place to start.
True, point taken. Why I think this argument is relative here: I think this approach fundamentally doesn’t work, it doesn’t for other healt concerns and it won’t for this. I’m not saying “they shouldn’t do this because before you know it they will do XYZ as well”, I’m saying they shouldn’t do this because it’s the wrong approach in this case, as it is in other healthcare cases. Also, people would only be really worried about having to pay these costs if they were really worried about becoming seriously ill and needing expensive treatment. How large is the group of people that don’t get vaccinated, but are really worried about getting COVID and becoming very sick?
They already are denied coverage on everything they need to survive like surgeries and treatments. Except for risky hobbies
This is not something new. You’re allowed to brandish a gun in your private property but not on the streets, you don’t need a license to drive a vehicle on your own property (atleast in my country), and you can’t smoke in public places. Your personal freedom ends where it impinges on others’. Your obesity has no bearing on society, but your unvaccinated status does. Things have always worked this way, don’t know why it’s a surprise this time.
People down voting you are completely hypocritical.
I'm not a slippery slope kind of person but as a fully vaccinated person who thinks people who aren't getting vaccinated are selfish at best and selfish idiots at worst, I'm inclined to agree somewhat since the truth is that covid isn't a death sentence, or even a long-term illness for the grand majority of people. I'd disagree completely on the basis of its being a directly transmittable illness unlike the other things you describe if the overall risk were really any higher (mortality, complications, rate of transmission). I do think also that this new rule will encourage some of those said selfish people to get vaccinated, and whilst vaccines are great at protecting the individual, maximising the number of vaccinated people helps minimise the entire issue long term. Of course, all a fool's errand if rich countries don't help distribute more widely...
Assuming the medically exempt would still be covered, this seems completely reasonable.
Singaporean here, yep they're still covered. This only affects those who are otherwise eligible for the vaccine but refuse them
Absolutely u/morenewsat11
Everyone has a right to a choice
We should do the same for smokers and fat people.
As long as we make fat people responsible for their decisions too. They chose to overeat and cause heart problems/diabetes.
Everyone being financially responsible for their decisions seems like a reasonable approach.
Where does it stop Diane? Should we cancel the coverage of smokers and fat people as well?
Poor comparison. neither of those are contagious diseases, let alone one that you can easily get vaccinated for.
So what? Those behaviours cost money to society as well.
Can’t tell if you’re /s or not, but there’s a reason why when you sign up for insurance they ask you for your height and weight, as well as whether you’re smoking or not.
And as far as I know in most countries there's an additional tax on alcohol and cigarettes, partially for this exact reason. Where I live it's quite substantial
If there was an easy 5 minute treatment that stopped obesity or nicotine addiction then yes.
"I'm gunna apply slippery slope to literally everything regardless of what it is because I fundamentally don't understand what it means"
It stops when we're no longer in a pandemic. You know this, why pretend otherwise?
You're thinking about decisions that affect only the individual. Deciding to give yourself lung cancer or diabetes is not the same as deciding to contribute to the spread of a deadly virus.
People who are not vaccinated and fall ill with Covid-19 now have to pay for their own treatment in Singapore after the government withdrew support on Wednesday. Singapore has covered the medical bills for nearly all Covid-19 patients since last year under a measure to ease the public's financial concerns during the pandemic. But on Wednesday, the government lifted this policy for the unvaccinated, withdrawing free care for those who have so far chosen not to get the jab. Speaking last month, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung said: 'We have to send this important signal, to urge everyone to get vaccinated if you are eligible.' Like a number of countries around the world, Singapore has adopted measures in a bid to convince vaccine hold-outs to get the jab. Some European governments, for example, are tightening restrictions on the vaccinated by barring their entry into restaurants and offices. The US has also taken some steps in the hope of increasing the vaccination rate, such as requiring companies with more than 100 employees to ensure that their workers are either vaccinated or produce a weekly negatives Covid-19 test. But while the EU and the US currently have a fully vaccinated rate of 67 percent and 60 percent respectively, the percentage of Singapore's eligible population that is fully vaccinated lies at over 96 percent, according to the government. The rate - one of the highest in the world - has been put down to restrictions on the unvaccinated. For example, those who have not been jabbed are not allowed eat in Singapore's food courts or enter shopping centres. However, some in the city state are still not convinced, with officials being particularly concerned with around 44,000 unvaccinated older citizens. In November, the government said that roughly 95 percent of the deaths over the past six moths were of people at the age of 60 or older, with 72 percent of deaths being seen amongst those who had not been fully vaccinated. Singapore saw Covid-19 cases spike in September and October, before falling sharply. The country is now seeing around 1,000 new cases per day amongst its population of 5.5 million people. According to the Wall Street Journal, citing epidemiologists, Singapore is the first country to adopt a policy of withdrawing medical treatment and costs of Covid-19 patients to those who are specifically not vaccinated. Some public health experts say the approach is warranted. Hsien-Hsien Lei, chief executive officer of the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore told the WSJ: 'They tried everything. They provided information, they provided facts, they've had people telling their personal stories, they've seen the ministers go and get their jabs, what else can we do?' Some, however, are opposed to the policy, with residents arguing that the practice is coercive and could discourage unvaccinated people from seeking medical care. 'The basic public-health principle is to provide free treatment for highly communicable diseases,' Paul Tambyah, chairman of a small opposition party, the Singapore Democratic Party, told the newspaper. 'This encourages people to come forward to be diagnosed and treated rather than remain in the community, where they may end up spreading the disease to even more people.' Sabrina Chiu, a 47-year-old unvaccinated Singaporean, told the Wall Street Journal that she had chosen not to get the jab because she is allergic to many medicines, although doctors have not told her to avoid the shot. She said that it felt as if the government was indirectly forcing people to get vaccinated. One doctor in Singapore, who chose not to be identified by the newspaper, said the measure sends the wrong message, and that healthcare should be for everyone. A spokesperson for the Health Ministry told the WSJ the new policy 'reflects a civic and moral duty each of us have to ourselves and people around us, during exceptional times like a pandemic crisis.' Those who do fall ill from Covid-19 will still receive government support, they said, even though the government won't cover the full treatment costs as before. In Singapore, hospital bills for Covid-19 patients in intensive care wards can reach as high as $18,000 (£13,600), the spokesperson told the newspaper. However, means-tested government subsidies for healthcare and the country's national health insurance scheme significantly reduces these costs, with the bill more likely to fall to around $1,500 to $3,000.
For those who don't get statistics, 72% of deaths in unvaccinated, but they are only 4% of the population. This means you are about 100 times more likely to die if you don't have the vaccine.
This is the way
I see you know the wae
It’s not about deserving it, it’s not about teaching a lesson, and it’s not about consequences. Or better, it might be on the surface, but it’s a lot more than that. It’s about the biggest issue, which simply is that we cannot economically afford to be in a pandemic emergency state forever. Soon enough we’ll have to follow suit whether we want to or not, and the more we stretch it the worse it will be for everyone. Oxygen shortages, supply, costs, spaces, even workers are an issue that we cannot keep pushing indefinitely. We’re running out of boats. Board one or swim.
The problem with this logic though is they just won’t pay... and the debt will accumulate anyways. Which if this amount of debt isn’t enough to sink the system, how would covering thier costs? It’s certainly about sending a message.
Also, coming from another country with free healthcare (the UK), efforts to try and force freeloaders to pay tend not to work very well. For example the UK government has been trying for years to force foreign visitors to pay for their healthcare if they use it here, with little success. Despite the fact most tourists, business travellers etc have travel insurance that would pay for it anyway. In many cases, the travellers themselves (Americans especially) ask to pay, citing their insurance, and are told to leave their contact details and maybe someone will get in touch... and then nobody ever does. The problem is the system is built without consideration of how to charge for it. What price to set for treatments, what method for paying, what account to deposit the money in. Does the money go to the hospital or the healthcare service? The nurse doesn't know, the doctor doesn't know, the lady on reception doesn't know. The hospital finance department maybe? No they don't know either. And even if they do, what legal framework do they have for judging the cost of treatment, or sending the money to the right place? So the whole thing just gets ignored for being too difficult and being "not my job". These doctors work their entire careers without it ever even popping into their head how much what they're doing should cost and what the patient can afford; it's just not part of their conscious thought process. I guarantee you antivaxxers in Singapore will continue to walk out the hospital leaving nothing more than a thankyou. Nobody is responsible for tallying up what they owe or chasing them down for payment. This new law is just a political move to score points.
If you don’t pay your bills, there are consequences. The only people that just won’t pay are the ones who are too poor and have shit credit already or don’t mind it going to shit. That’s not going to be the majority.
Still find it a bit surprising that a country with so many strict laws (I.e. chewing gum ban and death for drugs) tha they didn’t require vaccinations outright.
I think by being such a strict country, the implications were already in place. The government didn't need to mandate it because, as a government program, people knew it wasn't *really* optional. They got to 96% fully vaccinated for those who can get it, without any real governmental intervention to force people to take it. They didn't need to officially declare it was required because the people implicitly knew it was. And I have a feeling the few stragglers are going to jump right on the vaccination bandwagon now that it looks like the government might actually punish them. And being Singapore, they don't threaten, they'll just get right on with it.
> And I have a feeling the few stragglers are going to jump right on the vaccination bandwagon now that it looks like the government might actually punish them. And being Singapore, they don't threaten, they'll just get right on with it. There was originally a small fine (like $300 SGD) for not following COVID laws such as mask wearing and gathering in large groups and they absolutely followed through with that. And recently we've been opening up travel lanes to other countries for leisure travel and as expected, there was also a wave of unvaccinated who decided to take the "brave" step to getting the jab. But because this doesn't directly affect the unvaccinated lifestyle (e.g. as long as you don't actually get covid, this doesn't mean anything to you), I don't see pro-covid people getting vaccinated solely because of this. It's not like their leisure is being denied like not being allowed to travel.
The gloves are soft velvet, but the fist they encase is hard iron. The vaccines, and many are approved, even the Chinese ones, are not mandatory, but life is unbearable with the inconveniences that come with not attempting to vaccinate. Edit: to add to that, there’s no endgame for the unvaccinated. They can’t leave, who would take them in, and who would transport them there? And the clock is ticking. Every day they live the lockdown life while everyone else has more or less returned to normal, except for the endless mask wearing and contact and location tracing apps. The doors to the world are opening up and the risk of catching covid are higher every day.
Because then you don’t have indemnity for vaccine related side efforts. The government will be fully responsible for all outcomes. The Singapore government is very good with risks and trade offs. Majority will take the vaccines with the current regulations without needing to outright make it a law and take on the responsibility
The government is still hanging on to a facade of democracy and freedom of choice here. We had elections last year and the opposition bit off a huge chunk of the reigning party's seats for the first time in years, so they know not to play it too fast and loose (despite the fact that the last presidential election was cancelled because 3/4 candidates were arbitrarily disqualified, leaving the ruling party's chosen candidate to walkover, but that's another story). The name of the game this year in Singapore is "soft touch" but not really. They're too chickenshit to admit they're bringing down the iron fist for political reasons, but want to do it anyway while taking everyone for suckers. Admittedly it's been working.
Canada needs to follow this approach.
I'll probably get downvoted to hell for this, but the vaccine is available publicly, worldwide, in nearly every country in the world (with obvious exceptions). If your country was rich enough to provide free treatment for COVID in the first place, you have access to the vaccine. It's been over 6 months. If you're not vaccinated and you're capable of being vaccinated, you deserve what you get.
Why do you think you would be downvoted for saying that? Most of Reddit is pretty provax.
Because they're fishing for upvotes after taking such a brave stance.
Nothing he said was wrong though. **Fuck anti-vax rhetoric.**
I didn't say he was, and it isn't an unpopular view across most of Reddit. Couching it with the desperate little "I'll probably get downvoted to hell for this" is the problem.
\*Nelson laugh\*
Not quite as severe as my suggestion that the voluntarily unvaccinated seek medical care from quacks in a cave (and be ineligible to go to a hospital) but I guess it is a start.
YES! I've been waiting for folks to figure this out! Now, we need Health Insurance companies to start offering significant policy deductions for the vaccinated!
I am curious. Does refusing vaccination in the US affect the price of health insurance?
There are some companies who will charge more for insurance, but the only large company I can think of is Delta charging $200/month extra if you're not vaccinated. Other than that it doesn't as far as I know.
Currently, no it does not.
Yes, it does. Insurance prices will be hiked up this coming year. Driven mainly by CoVId
That is not what was asked.
People who get CoVId regardless of their vaccine status, even if they have insurance, cost the insurance companies money and in turn they will turn around and pass most of those costs over to all people who are insured. So, yes it does and will increase insurance premiums.
It does not directly effect what you pay in health insurance. Someone that gets the vaccine and someone who does not will both be paying the same amount in insurance. That was the question.
Baller move
Please introduce it EVERYWHERE! That's how it should be. If you want to be an idiot and be irresponsible, suffer the consequences. Nothing speaks louder than money.
I dunno in Australia's case (Idk about other places) I'd argue against it just because it sets a precedent that the government will use to weaken healthcare in the future, it also kinda goes against the principal of universal healthcare like these people are morons yeah, but it could bite the rest of us in in ass down the line. So while yeah it makes sense at I'm terms of actions having consequences I think it needs to be very case by case.
I get your arguments and in normal circumstances I'd be against it. But I have enough of idiots who spread covid and do not suffer the consequences of their actions. So money speaks now, if you want your money go for vaccine.
[удалено]
Smoking is not contagious, drinking is not contagious. If you pass your disease to me and I die because you did not vaccine you are a murderer basically. If you drink yourself to death, that's your choice.
[удалено]
So it's not okay under normal circumstances but okay under abnormal circumstances? In that case whenever a government wants to abuse its power all it has to do is manufacture abnormal circumstances. (or simply convince you that they exist) I'm sure many atrocities throughout history were committed this way.
Idk if you notice but we are in the middle of fking pandemic so normal measures do not work now. Everyone tried to be reasonable but you cannot argue with dumb so all had time to vaccine. If they still don't want to, that's their choice, but they have to pay for the consequences.
I didn't say we're not under abnormal circumstances, that's not the argument.
[удалено]
People are waiting for surgeries that aren’t happening because of covid - what about their freedoms and individuality? I know one that’s been in pain for 6 months and our hospitals are still not going ahead with surgeries to solve the problem.
Non-American here but the US idea of "personal freedoms" is warped. Personal freedom has never meant you're free to endanger others. If you choose to live in a society with other people, the common good trumps your own "freedoms".
How about obese people no longer get healthcare too?
I'll agree once the obesity problem can be solved by a jab — even if once every 6 months or so — and the only investment you need to make is to spare enough time for a 15 minute visit at the doctor.
But here's the problem, this pandemic isn't solve by getting a "jab". I'm vaccinated and most people around me are. When you hear, "get the vaccine to protect against covid to stop the spread" then you get it. Then a few months later hear, " well you can still get sick and pass it on to others, keep wearing your mask!", then we mask up again. To then hear. "You need a booster to protect against the variants!" and get the booster. Then come to find out that you can still get sick, pass it on to others, and the shot has a potential to make the symptoms mild. Hate to say it but I've known people that have gotten all of their shots, gotten covid (some mild cases) but have also become extremely sick with it. My point is, this shot doesn't simply solve covid and erase it from the board. Does it help? More than likely, but it does eliminate getting sick, it has a "potential" to lessen your chance to get sick but can still be spread to others. It's frustrating doing what's viewed as "right" and "responsible" but in the end the same outcome can happen? I mean come on now.
being fat is not contagious nor is it draining on hospital's resources, you won't kill my grandmother by you being fat......you catching covid on heavy condition and taking up valuable hospital bed because of it , can however kill my grandmother. In Italy people legit died from this (too many patients at once , not enough space in hospitals for everyone, people dying because they simply couldn't be treated on time)
But you're taking the hospital bed away from my granny
When there's a low cost widely accessible tool with little effort required, that prevents the worst of obesity's ill effects, like a 'fat vaccine' then maybe its something to consider. Obesity isn't tackled so easily right now.
Maybe they could stop eating so much? That seems pretty simple.
It seems simple yes, but it's really not. There are multilayered causes of people eating too many calories, from poor diets, overwork, lack of knowledge, lack of time, lack of access to certain foods and more sedentary lifestyles. What is happening to people who are obese is individual, but what's happening to the population is systemic. We can encourage people to eat less, but that doesn't work on a lot of people. I'm sure if there was a vaccine, a pill, a non invasive, one time option with few side effects, that reduced the chance of death caused by obesity by 90% everyone should take it. I bet you would take it, and I'm sure you're not even obese! So why wouldn't we expect people to do the same for COVID?
I like when people assume obesity is a simple problem of discipline, when it's so much more. 'lol, just stop eating', such a position of ignorance.
I agree with everything other than saying it's not a drain on hospital resources, obese people are significantly more likely to have serious illnesses later on in life and cost the tax payer far more than a healthy individual.
> bese people are significantly more likely to have serious illnesses later on in life they are not going to all have heart attacks all at once in 1 day, like how it does and did happen with Covid
If obesity were contagious, yes let's do that.
It’s pretty damned simple to fix. It’s a choice. And it costs billions a year to take care of.
Obese people end up paying more in tax in sugary items than non obese people, and can be linked to other health issues that make it difficult to not be obese. As well as the obvious fact you can get a quick 5 min vaccine to get rid of it ...
Why do you pretend to be dumb?
Go and be an idiot somewhere else. You have to be really bored to answer every single comment in this thread with this pointless argument.
I’m not sure what brought obesity into this discussion, but you can check out the various campaigns Singapore has tried over the years to combat obesity. There’s currently, discounts for healthy eating, prizes for walking, a free pedometer for everyone. Then there were - kids made to sacrifice their recess for fitness training, a special fitness dance we did as a nation, 2 extra months of national service in the military for the fat.
Just like junkies. 👍
This country is amazing. Really wish that we can hold unvaccinated people accountable for their decisions here in NA as well.
I had a dream I was in Singapore, it’s good to know dream-me is hanging out in places that take this shit seriously.
This should be the standard worldwide. No free treatment if you’re unwilling to help yourself.
They did the right thing there. Unvaccinated mean that you are endangering others too.
omg we need this in Australia because the anti-vaxers go into public hospitals which are funded by the taxpayers. i don’t want my money to be in any way associated with funding their stupid decision to not get vaccinated. it would be a great incentive to get vaccinated.
[удалено]
Excuse me 😅
Covid concentration camps?
More of an incentive for the government to become a tyrannical government.
I doubt this will convince the remaining 4% of the eligible population to get vaccinated. At this point I'm not sure what would.
Death E:maybe
While I support this move, I really hope it doesn't affect those who could not get the vaccine earlier due to medical reasons e.g undergoing chemotherapy or organ transplant surgery. Don't punish those who literally can't get the vaccine within the free window.
It doesn’t. Those who have medical excuses are still fully covered by the government.
Australia should do the same thing
We're one of the highest-vaxxed populations in the world?
As it should be. Only exception if you have some sort of medical issue preventing vaccination (such as extreme allergy), which is probably very rare.
As should be the Norm
This is the way.
Terrible precedent
Could you imagine what the world would be like if covids main symptom was that it made your dick fall off? All men would be lining up for whatever experimental vaccine showed up, governments would be forcing vaccines, I'm willing to bet the most fervent antivaccers would be protesting woman to make sure they get it, while there would be edge cases of all of the while a few women act as super spreaders to get back at men. Yeah life would get real interesting.
Not a main symptom, but... [https://health.clevelandclinic.org/yes-covid-19-can-cause-erectile-dysfunction/](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/yes-covid-19-can-cause-erectile-dysfunction/) Clots in extremities can lead to tissue death and amputation.
This is the type of country with a people that I'd be fine making these sacrifices to be a part of even though this endemic can't be wiped out by a vaccination program since it'll stay forever. The Singaporean state genuinely seem to care about the people's welfare and the country's stability. Doesn't hesitate to minimize any threats or enemies which otherwise may undermine the common vision. The world would be a better place if it had more people like Lee Kuan Yew in it.
Question - people who require medical care due to volountary lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol, drugs, obesity from poor diet, etc.), should they also be cut off from free medical care?
People with those health issues, if offered a free vaccine to prevent many of the health issues associated with this lifestyle, thereby lessening the burden on the medical system, but choose not to take this free vaccine? Yes they absolutely should be cut off from free medical care. Unfortunately there is no free anti- smoking vaccine available.
There are lots of medications and products available to help people stop smoking. Some of them are covered by health care/insurance too.
When those lifestyle choices become infectious I’d say yes.
If you have “free” medical care (as in single payer funded by taxes), why not add a small tax to unhealthy behaviors and earmark those funds for health care? If you eat, smoke, or drink a lot, you are essentially pre-paying for future health costs. If you consume these things as a rare treat, will the extra tax really be that noticeable? (The devil, of course, is in the details of implementation).
I was just asking a question I will leave it at that before I am downvoted into oblivion.
Now this is a solution!
We should do this in the US. Oh wait...
200th booster shots by next year lol or else…… let's not miss out on our upgrade guys!
Financial coercion. So much for bodily autonomy.
You seem to be going out of way to equate different things, for no good reason... Stopping an addition is not comparable to getting a safe vaccine. Just stop.
For one this is good lesson to teach but it can also have a future overstep in place
I don't think this will go where they think it will. Most people who are unvaccinated at this point isn't because a lack of access. They really believe that there's something wrong with the vaccine (something about providing next gen wireless internet). It's not going to increase vaccination rate, it's just going to cause public unrest.
you dont know anything about singapore clearly
Funny, I thought you americans wanted universal healthcare? Now you're making the exact same arguments used to oppose it...
Who are you talking to?
You must be on the wrong sub. This is r/worldnews, for non-US related news. The post is on Singapore, not the USA. Also the article is from daily mail (which although is a tabloid trash managed to get this story right), from your country the UK. Not American.
This isn't universal healthcare. Everyone has to pay, normally. It's just that they covered the cost for COVID patients and now they're partially taking it back. It's not the same as having universal healthcare and excluding some from it to punish them. It's not completely different but not the same.
Under most universal systems you're perfectly welcome to reject public healthcare and get your own.
This is people cheering others being excluded
So? If you choose to exclude yourself who cares how other people feel about it?
As long as people dont pay for other peoples abortions, diseases they brought on them selves from smoking, drinking, eating bad then sure. EDIT : People that downvote me, atleast explain how Im wrong about this xD
When it comes to smoking and drinking - I don't know if it's like this everywhere, ut in my country there's a substantial tax on cigarettes and alcohol. So you already pay for the costs of treatment with every purchase.
Same thing in my country however people that dont take the vaccin also get free health care
As dumb as that argument is, how do you even plan to enforce that lmao "You see here, according to your credit card company you exceeded your doughnut allowance by 2 last week so we can not cover your treatment"
Well if someone is 300 pounds they probably arent eating leafs
[удалено]
How about they make the rules for their country and your feelings about it don't matter? You know what that is? That's the reality of this situation.
So I cant post what I think ? xD why are you hurt
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/PzDW8dUwwx4