Of course!It was conceived by politicians to slow down the demand for care, as if it were to be voluntary consumption. The reality is that people at the bottom of the social ladder who already have the most medical problems are going to avoid the necessary care. If we abolish it, the care premium goes up, but that is a choice and a question of civilization. The sent and rich pay for the sick and poor.
O Yes, if the ZvW and the premiums go up to cover the costs such as eg.In the United Kingdom, whether one reimbursements only the most necessary health costs, and the other costs under a voluntary supplementary private insurance, Zosls is partly in Belgium.
The question of whether we can have a health system without our own risk is a question of how far solidarity should go.
People disagree about this, because their worldview is different. Some people advocate self-reliance and care from the community, others for supporting “weak” by the government.
A person who is in favour of government support will rather argue for a health care system without excess as someone who assumes self-reliance and care from the community.For both points of view there is something to say.
Ultimately, this is a cost/benefit issue.If the excess is reduced, will people take more care? And what does this increase in care cost?
Someone has to pay this and if this is not the recipient of concern, then it is another, possibly by means of a cover system (tax).
The model I do see is a hybrid model.
Basic care (GP, dentist check) is not covered by the excess.
Care that “must” does not fall under the excess.This can be determined by a specialist, but criteria for this may be difficult to fix.
Then there remains a lot of care about which is desirable but no “must”.Here someone can use their own contribution to take care of the tailor.
You indicate with your own money how important you find this care, with a threshold at the top of it.
The question is, however, how this threshold should look, is this an absolute amount or a percentage of the income?What support can we offer to someone who has very little income?
Another question that is also relevant, and I think swearing in the church: how can we make care different, more efficient, organize.It doesn’t have to be a running tire work, care is people work, but probably here is also a lot to win. For example: How can you use the “community” to regulate light care tasks that allow people working in care to concentrate on the “heavier cases”?
There are possibilities if you think a little creative, the big problem is that (political) capacity is lacking.And in the end, we must all agree that the excess is detrimental in the care. Until we are so far, your own risk remains a means of regulating the reduction of care, with all the advantages and disadvantages that are associated with it.
No doubt that must be able.
The current structure has arisen with a reason, in search of the balance of social security, solidarity without excessive social taxation, seeking the social consensus for what society deems acceptable.Now that this system has been created so it is quite easy to turn the buttons, premium up here, load down there, etc.
The abolition of the own risk means that there is also a need to do anything else, one-here means A + there.This will translate into a more limited coverage, or a higher premium.
What needs to change is in the minds of the politicians who have devised this in this way.
Once the care system is no longer a earning model, that could be fine.Because the care is part of the free market, it has grown so that health insurers can decide whether to pay your own risk or not.
Thanks for the question, Hannah, but I am rather experiential expert than expert in matter.
In Belgium, you must be primarily affiliated with a health insurance fund, also known as a mutuality or ‘ sickness ‘ in the popularly.Most have a political color. The fund will ensure that you receive a refund of a portion of the costs for a visit to a doctor or specialist.
The health insurance funds also offer additional services for their members, such as foot care, home nursing and even vacations.
In addition, it is advisable to take out a hospitalisation insurance as young as possible.A lot of private companies do this for their employees. A piece of the contribution pays the employer, another piece is taken off by the salary.
I am now retired and could continue the hospitalisation insurance through my former employer.Very useful if you are in for hospitalisation. I said ‘ as young as possible ‘, because the premiums increase with the age of the insured.
Comparing the Dutch system with our Belgian I dare not do well.But I feel that the Belgian system is more social if you look at the ‘ excess ‘. Although there is also a complaint here, for example because the hospitalisation insurance is a franchise.
To know exactly, you should be able to put together the annual contribution of a Dutch and a Belgian insured person in a similar situation and with the same age.
But if you read American States on Quora, it is very true in our Low Countries.
The care has become extra expensive by the privatisation.For the current system I paid 鈧?3 per month, now that is over 鈧?00. My income has barely increased. I pay CA 鈧?0 to medications every year. If there was no, I would not submit a declaration. The last time I went to the doctor in the Netherlands, I just paid him cash. No account needed. It should make sure that people who are tight do not go to the doctor, so that the insurance companies can earn a little more. Thanks Mr. Rutte.