Teatime: Is insurance only for the abled and healthy?
This is part of a weekly column in which we talk about anything under the sun
Insurance is supposed to be a safety net, a cushion that catches us when life throws unexpected challenges our way.
Yet, more often than not, it seems this net is offered only to those who are able-bodied and healthy.
One of my twin sons was treated for hyperthyroidism as soon as he was finally discharged from special care following his birth.
It was a huge disappointment when my agent told me that he could not be covered by any hospitalisation plan because of this. I can only hope that my son either never gets hospitalised or that our Medisave is enough to cover his expenses should it happen.
Trying to get both boys equally covered has been frustrating. The more I look, the more my boy with hyperthyroidism seems to be at a disadvantage.
Take the Great Eastern's Great Maternity Care campaign for example.
In order to qualify for the hospitalisation plans, the child must not be premature (born on or after 37 gestational weeks) and be at least 15 days old and discharged from the hospital. This excludes all preemies as well as babies who need to go to special care or the intensive care unit for longer periods of time.
The plans also will not cover any pre-existing conditions or congenital illnesses a child has before purchasing the plans.
Basically, it covers only babies who are healthy at birth.
Why are insurance plans targeting individuals who are less likely to need them?
It feels counter-intuitive to exclude the most vulnerable. If a baby is born with a medical condition, it’s precisely that family that could use the financial backing of an insurance plan.
However, under this scheme, they’re left without access to coverage.
Insurance companies, in their pursuit of profits, have always been cautious when it comes to risks but by sidelining those who need protection the most, it begs the question: What is the true purpose of the insurance companies?
Insurance, at its core, should be about managing risk, not avoiding it entirely. If the vulnerable is excluded from the equation, the system fails its societal role.
I understand that from a business perspective, offering insurance to those with pre-existing conditions comes with significant costs. But by simply keeping them out of the safety net instead of offering alternatives widens the gap dividing the financially-capable healthy people and the disadvantaged.
A person with a pre-existing health problem buys an insurance plan that covers everything except the condition – the very thing that might be the person's cause of hospitalisation or death.
My son will have to depend on whatever healthcare help the government has carved out. He also has to hope that his condition does not worsen and trigger other related health issues, and that his parents will remain financially capable for all the added costs.
Get The New Paper on your phone with the free TNP app. Download from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store now