Dutch Women and Work

Originally posted by smw6869
Who the hell cares ?


GRANNY.

So, if it's not on your doorstep, you don't care?
Typical. That's why you're pig-ignorant.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Alright, well the government spends too much on defense (it's a small country, stop pretending our army matters, sheesh), the tax code is needlessly complicated with questionable deductions (e.g. mortgage deductions), too much is spent on development aid (let people decide what charitable causes are important to them), income inequality is too large (Gi ...[text shortened]... asting a lot of effort and money police could use for catching actual criminals... I can go on.

I'm interested in the health care problem (from Wiki):

"The first lesson for the United States is that the new (post-2006) Dutch health insurance model may not control costs. To date, consumer premiums are increasing, and insurance companies report large losses on the basic policies. Second, regulated competition is unlikely to make voters/citizens happy; public satisfaction is not high, and perceived quality is down. Third, consumers may not behave as economic models predict, remaining responsive to price incentives. If regulated competition with individual mandates performs poorly in auspicious circumstances such as the Netherlands, how will this model fare in the United States, where access, quality, and cost challenges are even greater? Might the assumptions of economic theory not apply in the health sector?"

Can you comment on:
"Large losses on the basic policies": This I would expect.
"regulated competition": What does this mean?
"consumers may not behave as economic models predict, remaining responsive to price incentives.": Because this sounds like the opposite of what you were claiming.

Originally posted by shavixmir
So, if it's not on your doorstep, you don't care?
Typical. That's why you're pig-ignorant.

Relax, Shav, it's a joke... a play on KN's initial reluctance to "bore" us with Dutch politics.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I'm interested in the health care problem (from Wiki):

"The first lesson for the United States is that the new (post-2006) Dutch health insurance model may not control costs. To date, consumer premiums are increasing, and insurance companies report large losses on the basic policies. Second, regulated competition is unlikely to make voters/citizens h ...[text shortened]... rice incentives.": Because this sounds like the opposite of what you were claiming.[/b]

"Large losses on the basic policies"

Initially, when the reform was enacted in 2006, insurance companies went below break-even on the basic (mandatory) insurance in order to get more costumers (funded by larger margins on additional, non-mandatory insurance such as dental care). In the meantime, however, after the dust had settled, insurers are now making a small profit on the basic insurance as well as additional insurance. Mergers have ensured that the market is now dominated by 4 major insurers, who presumably have some cartels running in order to cheat consumers.

"regulated competition"

I guess they are referring to the fact that the government still dictates the minimum insurance that insurers must offer; this is a package of health care that is deemed essential by the government (GPs, ambulances, hospital stays, conventional treatments to life-threatening diseases, etc.).

"consumers may not behave as economic models predict, remaining responsive to price incentives."

In general consumers do not want to go through a lot of hassle to change their insurance company. Also, people don't usually save on health care. What was I claiming that was opposite to this?

Originally posted by spruce112358
I'm interested in the health care problem (from Wiki):

"The first lesson for the United States is that the new (post-2006) Dutch health insurance model may not control costs. To date, consumer premiums are increasing, and insurance companies report large losses on the basic policies. Second, regulated competition is unlikely to make voters/citizens h ...[text shortened]... rice incentives.": Because this sounds like the opposite of what you were claiming.[/b]

One of the issues that needs to be addressed is ensuring that there's enough supply to meet the rising demand for healthcare. No "universal healthcare" policy is going to succeed if all you do is increase demand - the result will just be rising costs and you'll just be exchanging one form of rationing (insurance premiums) for another (denials, or waiting lines).

Obviously, in such a situation, it is extremely important that every insurance market has maximum levels of competition - so that you're not compounding the existing natural healthcare costs with insurance companies that are able to use their control over local markets to add to these costs.

But ultimately, if we're going to ever ensure that everyone gets access to adequate healthcare, increasing the supply of healthcare is an essential part of the equation.