SINGAPORE - In an economic downturn, one might cut down on restaurant dining or defer his retirement plans. But medical treatment?
The Institute of Policy Studies survey assessing the resilience of Singaporeans to last year's economic crisis threw up a potentially worrying statistic: One in five (21 per cent) of the 2,109 respondents aged 21 and above said the crisis would affect their decision to have medical treatment - if it has not done so already.
Medical treatment was the second most-cited "life choice" affected by the crisis in the survey, conducted over December and January.
The most impacted life choice was leisure, with four in 10 respondents saying the crisis had affected their decisions.
The survey did not differentiate between medical treatment that was urgent or non-urgent, or for serious or minor ailments.
The finding is thus worrying only if Singaporeans were neglecting necessary treatment, said social work Associate Professor Ngiam Tee Liang.
"Then we'll worry about longer term consequences because the illness could get more serious, treatment could get more expensive. And we don't want that to happen as far as possible," he said.
In a similar survey by IPS in February last year - when Singapore was in the thick of the economic gloom - a similar proportion of respondents (22 per cent) had mentioned the crisis affecting their medical treatment decisions.
But it was only the sixth most-cited area, with more respondents saying their career plans, retirement plans, personal education plans, and children's education plans were being affected.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
With the rising cost of medical treatment in Singapore, the word on the streets is that "you can die, but you cannot get sick" and the truth is that medical fee is very expensive. To get sick in Singapore without medisave and insurance is even worst. Unless you gotten something life threatening, if not you will be fine.
People spend too much on unnecessary items such as luxury bags, expensive meals, etc. And are more concern in keeping up with appearances. People pay so much to eat the rich and high-fat food, and then pay more to gym clubs to burn off the fats. People also spend the money and time to queue up just for sale items that you may never need to use, when you can spend time exercising and spend money buying healthier food.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Nuclear energy in South- East Asia ?
Following the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington DC, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave assurances that even as Singapore moves towards nuclear energy, its feasibility will first be studied.( TODAY NEWSPAPER 2 May 2010)
What is nuclear energy?
It is energy that is produced when the nucleus of an atom is divide or join to another nucleus.
Countries in SEA are thinking about using nuclear energy as an alternative energy source due to low cost and carbon free emissions. But why nuclear energy ?
There are other kinds of alternatives like Geo-thermal energy which is using the heat inside the earth to generate energy.Geo-thermal power is cost effective, reliable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly, but is limited to areas near tectonic plate boundaries. Countries like Indonesia and Vietnam could use such technology as they are located near the boundaries.
Indonesia recently got approval to build the first nuclear power plant. The reason for it is that 'Indonesia can no longer rely on non-renewable energy sources such as gas and coal to generate electricity in future,' the chairman of the parliamentary commission for energy, technology and the environment, Mr Teuku Riefky Harsya, said in a statement. (Straits Times 17 march 2010)
I think a lot of people would agree to the statement as non-renewable energy is depleting at an alarming rate. Governments around the world are looking for alternative sources. But is nuclear energy the best option?
Safety is one of the factor considered in building nuclear power plant.
The worst nuclear accident to date was the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. That accident killed 50 people directly, and may cause as many as 4,000 additional cases of fatal cancer over time, as well as damaging almost $7 billion of property. Radioactive fallout from the accident concentrated over or near Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and at least 350,000 people were forcibly resettled away from these areas. Even thought the new designs are better, there is no guarantee that problems would not happen.
If the government were to build one, land will be a limitation. The construction cost will also be an issues, as it is typical for the cost to overruns. People says that it is clean energy where no carbon dioxide is produce. But when we look at it as a whole, carbon dioxide are being produces by mining of land, construction of the building and transporting of materials.
Countries should also consult with each other to reassure their neighbours that their plans meet the highest standards of safety in design, construction and operation.
TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE? This depends on the government to make the right decision :)
What is nuclear energy?
It is energy that is produced when the nucleus of an atom is divide or join to another nucleus.
Countries in SEA are thinking about using nuclear energy as an alternative energy source due to low cost and carbon free emissions. But why nuclear energy ?
There are other kinds of alternatives like Geo-thermal energy which is using the heat inside the earth to generate energy.Geo-thermal power is cost effective, reliable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly, but is limited to areas near tectonic plate boundaries. Countries like Indonesia and Vietnam could use such technology as they are located near the boundaries.
Indonesia recently got approval to build the first nuclear power plant. The reason for it is that 'Indonesia can no longer rely on non-renewable energy sources such as gas and coal to generate electricity in future,' the chairman of the parliamentary commission for energy, technology and the environment, Mr Teuku Riefky Harsya, said in a statement. (Straits Times 17 march 2010)
I think a lot of people would agree to the statement as non-renewable energy is depleting at an alarming rate. Governments around the world are looking for alternative sources. But is nuclear energy the best option?
Safety is one of the factor considered in building nuclear power plant.
The worst nuclear accident to date was the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. That accident killed 50 people directly, and may cause as many as 4,000 additional cases of fatal cancer over time, as well as damaging almost $7 billion of property. Radioactive fallout from the accident concentrated over or near Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and at least 350,000 people were forcibly resettled away from these areas. Even thought the new designs are better, there is no guarantee that problems would not happen.
If the government were to build one, land will be a limitation. The construction cost will also be an issues, as it is typical for the cost to overruns. People says that it is clean energy where no carbon dioxide is produce. But when we look at it as a whole, carbon dioxide are being produces by mining of land, construction of the building and transporting of materials.
Countries should also consult with each other to reassure their neighbours that their plans meet the highest standards of safety in design, construction and operation.
TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE? This depends on the government to make the right decision :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)