When I was young, naif and idealistic, I found that health care had to be sold just like a normal product on the free market.The Government must ensure that no one is poor (so: everyone has enough money to buy sickness, living space, food etc) and then each chooses for themselves.
I am more beautifully set up nowadays.What works, works. What also saves me is that I have lived a decades in the Netherlands and a decades in the UK, so I have some comparative material.
And I can tell you: the Dutch insurance stelel works for no meter.Yes, Dutch people get reasonably good health care (they also pay vlink for it), but that is despite, not thanks, the insurance system.
Dutch doctors sometimes spend more time on insurance hassles than on health care.For patients, the financial aspects of treatment are often a great concern and lead the attention away from the medical questions.
You may now be able to argue that care is now taking, and that eliminating all financial incitaments would lead to overconsuption.But it does not work in practice. In addition to choice treatments such as cosmetic operations, a social (political) choice must be made which can or will not be paid by the patient himself.
So just offer everything for free (as in the UK) or reimburse everything by the Government (as in Denmark).It does not lead to less efficient resource allothe, only to less financial overhead.
So it was always.It was great.
Then the government would start functioning as an insurer.And it’s one without competitors, so there’s no incentive to get cheaper, better, or more efficient.Then the premium, your mentioned contribution, would be high or the quality of the care shockingly low. And probably both.
Yes!My health expenses were at least 125 per month, with a deductible of 350. Myself I only go 1x in the 2 to 3 years to the GP, so I pay veeeelste a lot for how often I use it.
Happened to be past last week because of violent complaints; I was not there for 3 minutes (not exaggerated!) He looks at me and pretending to be flu because we are just coming out of the flu season, while I’m sure this is not the case. In other words I pay and pay and when I want to make use of it I am not even taken seriously.Still suffer and am working to switch to another GP.
So yes, the prices may be down!
(Luckily I have been working for Luxembourg recently and I have no more sickness costs.But for the rest of the Netherlands I find it only pure rip-off while health is really a primary need.)
The question is wrong, or the questioner is very naive.Nothing is free, 芒 鈧?艙for nothing goes the sun up 芒 鈧? In each system must 芒 鈧?艙some芒 鈧?The cost of health care pay. Or did the questioner then all in the healthcare department worked for free for nothing, and hospitals, health centers and the often very expensive high tech facilities were delivered for nothing?
People mean asking how it is to settle that people at the place, where care is given, do not have to settle immediately.Now, that is already so for the insured care, the questioner also intends to ask how the compulsory own risk can be lapsed, and actually thinks that there should also be no health insurance premium.
At present, health care is paid for 50% via a (ZvW) levy of the state, 50% through the care pemies that one pays to the health insurance companies,
According to the health insurance law = ZvW from 2006 we pay in 2019 ZvW levy to the government, we 5.70%, our employer 6.95% about our taxable income up to a maximum of 芒 ‘ 卢 55,924 annually.Children under 18 years of age are free of charge with the parents/guardian. The own Risiko per person in 2019 is annual 芒 ‘ 卢 385,-/year
In order not to pay premiums to a care worker, the ZvW levy has to rise considerably, this means that we have to pay a lot more taxes, then the government has the money to pay the costs of the health care completely.
And that is exactly what nobody want.
Arguments against centering around 芒 鈧?虄moral Hazard芒 鈧劉.The idea that people are less cautious when their costs are covered. (I wonder who thinks you can walk a highway because the care costs are covered anyway). An argument before would be that if we have the capacities to make people live normally we should also use them optimally and the struggle we all have with Zn to put money down. My opinion is quite clear I think.
No, maybe good if arranged and possibility to insure via the government.The possibilities for misuse are both on the part of the insured and the insurer (in this case the government). This seems to be the case now.
Yes.By sharing the costs we pay on average per person less, even though some people will pay more than others.