4 ms·

People seem to hold the Dutch healthcare system in high regard, and it's private.

• cma 7y ago
  They seem to only partly be private (like the US). > Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from earmarked taxation under the provisions of the Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten, which came into effect in 1968.
• parasight 7y ago
  According to the German Wikipedia article every Dutch person is required by law to have a "legally defined" healthcare contract. Sounds quite different to the US system.
  • 283627283637 7y ago
    At face value, this is almost exactly what Obama did. It killed most of the cheap options for people who just want emergency coverage and was essentially a tax in disguise which many Americans objected to.
    • PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      This is false. "Catastrophic coverage" was ended because of the sheer wealth of data that these insurance policies did not in fact provide their customers with what the customers were expecting. That is: a person with such a policy who unfortunately suffered a major accident or severe illness would find the insurance company wriggling out of any financial responsibility. The rules were tightened up, and without any explict legal language banning them, insurance companies dropped such policies because they knew they could not satisfy the new rules requiring actual coverage.
      • 283627283637 7y ago
        I'm not contesting that there were people who didn't understand their plans, there are people who don't understand their plans now. That doesn't change that they were low cost insurance products that could be combined with an untaxed HSA to produce a comparatively strong safety net at a low price for the consumer. It also doesn't change the all around price inflation that happened following the market consolidation that came in wake of the changes you mention.
  • creato 7y ago
    It sounds quite similar to the Obamacare individual mandate. Of course that's gone now...
    • olliej 7y ago
      private health insurance in the US is (even under Obamacare) expensive, and the deductibles are high if you're on those cheap plans. Under an Obamacare cheapest possible insurance option you're not going to be bankrupted by (for example) a heart attack, but you'll still be paying the bill for a long time. That ignores hospitals like SF general that charge you directly (and are out of network) so you can still be trivially bankrupted.
• neilwilson 7y ago
  The British NHS is private at the primary care level. Every GP is a private business contracted by the government to provide local health services. It’s the elimination of the uninsured risk (aka will I get paid for treating this individual) that is the difference. Not whether the healthcare provider is employed directly by the state.
  • Arnt 7y ago
    There's more. I've lived in two different countries which have competently managed and effective health care systems. They're different from each other and it's noticeable, but so are various traits they share. They both try to learn from what other countries are doing better, they both keep costs down, they both are competently managed and essentially socialist (that is, they work for the entire population). Here's a trio of predictions: At least one of the competent European health systems will mishandle the Corona crisis and a lot more people will die than in the neighbouring countries. The American fanbois will use that as a solid proof that anything and everything that country's health system is wrong, including the things its neighbours also do. Noone in the American health system will try to learn from the more successful handling in some European countries, and definitely not from any country like South Korea or Taiwan, outside the Indoeuropean language zone.