What may be the case is that (since insurers are private companies) they to -attract more business- extend the cover in what they offer in the 'basic package' (and at a later date change it again). But some of them do that by covering everyone through a regulated system of health plans, while others truly have a single public plan for everyone. You do not see these on TV in Netherlands.

So while the Dutch system may be working on the small scale of 4 million people all with a similar value system and a less diversified population---it remains to be seen if such a system could really work in this country.

The OECD report can be found here:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/48/41925333.pdf, (You can also see that GP's earn a bit less: 121 vs 146k).

In comparison, average employee premiums in the U.S. in 2017 were $118 for single-person plans and $435 for family plans. A survey of health satisfaction comparing the US and several other countries, including the Netherlands, showed that the Netherlands led the pack in most measures of patient satisfaction and provision of care. A friend told me her cousin lives in The Netherlands, moved there a couple of years ago for her husband's job. I was furious at what I thought were the failures of individuals: the usual story of uncaring personnel and inefficient bureaucracy familiar to users of the NHS.

Without giving me any explanation he claimed that I was excluded from brachytherapy.

If, e.g., your treatment takes longer than the key prescribes, you lose out. My prostate was to be made suitable for brachytherapy by neo-adjuvant hormone therapy (not advocated in the Dutch guideline mentioned below), during which time EBRT will be applied. Only meds. Second, the single public plans that have been proposed in the U.S. so far would provide everyone with a wide range of benefits, including vision, dental, and long-term care. no matter how much they are willing to pay for it. Your comment that the New Healthcare System provides for "surgery that can cure blindness," is not fully accurate and explicit. I have a friend who is Dutch with a chronic illness. I still go to Dutch doctors and so on for some of my medical tests each year. The insurers are highly-incentivised to provide inexpensive care and strictly forbidden from discriminating against very sick and chronically-ill patients. He faithfully followed his own guideline, which imposes a life-threatening structural defect on the system of Dutch healthcare.

It is best if I cut and paste what I have written and circulated. I was told that the insurers have set "caps," upper limits to the amount of certain medications that a patient can receive throughout the entire course of his or her treatment. That is one of the things that changed some 2-3 years ago. Let’s take a closer look at how eight of our peer countries get to universal coverage, how much they pay for their health care, and what role private insurance plays in each. Nevertheless we are facing - I think - quite some trouble with the ongoing increase in care (and cure) for the youth and the elderly. Healthcare is on its way to becoming a one-word noun throughout the English-speaking world.The change is well underway in British publications, where healthcare already appears about three times as often as health care and is used as both a noun and an adjective. -So far, does it appear the system is self-sustaining financially, or is it running over budget?

The cost of basic Dutch medical insurance is around €100 - €120 per month. For its file (archival) name is â65+ prostaat_carc_2007.' Coming a bit late here, but this simply isn't true. I believe that this partially answers the question of contribution #48. Just for fun I compared my current American insurance against the base insurance in the Netherlands (www.kiesbeter.nl), and my insurance here covers less (basic even covers OI, KI, IUI, IVF and ICSI at 100%). (4) Risk of Death From Prostate Cancer after Brachytherapy Alone or with Radiation, Androgen Suppression Therapy, or Both in Men with High-Risk Disease. Healthcare outcomes include amenable mortality, readmission, and patient experience. Let me describe one aspect of this.

Another week later I was looking at my surgeon looking in my knee with a tiny camera. They got more frequent tests and procedures, more visits with specialists, and more frequent admission to hospitals.

She also describes waits of up to three months for a specialist visit. This opinion piece, presented as if there is some method or objective…, Inevitably, with the announcement of The March for Science on Earth Day, April 22nd of this year, come the inevitable naysayers decrying the politicization of science. I agreed and received the treatment (with two sessions of High Dose Rate Brachytherapy). Pseudoscience is effective. In Norway, funding is split: primary care is funded through municipal taxes, while national taxes pay for hospital and specialty care. Especially for the poor(er) and the chronic diseased (very often also living on limited incomes). In fact the coverage of the 'basic package" has only been extended. There are perhaps some good ideas here, but it is still a work in progress from what my friend tells me.

In addition, a Fidelity survey finds almost half of U.S. employees believe their employers wonât provide health insurance, 2019. DISSIDENT SPECIALIST: Mr Berger, that is absolutely correct (all this in Dutch). In the Netherlands, financing is shared between individuals and their employers, and insurance plans also cover dependents.

Their system is fairly simple, everyone is required to purchase insurance from highly-regulated private providers. The second tier may reimburse extra fees according to what kind of package the different insurers in the second tier offer. “Single payer,” meanwhile, is generally used to describe how other wealthy countries organize their health systems. I'm not an American but let me ask this: do you want to let the for-profit-market who's main interest is keeping the shareholders happy, decide what care you get; or the government, who's main interest is keeping you happy, in order to get re-elected? Also, not every system is like Canada with such strict controls on what can be charged.

Cost-sharing is also lower in the Netherlands: there is none for primary care and preventive services, while copayments for other services are capped at $475 per year, after which they are free.

This has been criticized…, Amanda Marcotte, who I've enjoyed reading since her days at Pandagon, was curious about what having a CT president might mean.

With the added "bonus" in the USA that corporations can decide who can and cannot have such surgeries based on their profit margin!!! I shall write more as soon as I post this. Whatever the details might be, in no other EU country do the insurance companies have such extensive decision-making freedom that national law prevents its government from interfering with most of their activities. George, I am in Oncology in the U.S who as you know is looking to the Netherlands to model our health care reform bill after.

The objective does not have to be to sell the most expensive care but the most effective care.... to everyone. Not the taxpayer, but the government and insurers, who try to prevent any increase in their expenditures. I think the US insurance companies are missing a major point. DUTCH HEALTHCARE IS A DANGEROUS âANOMALY IN EUROPEâ, George Berger (PhD), Uppsala, Sweden Then I shall describe what I have learned since I wrote this document. When another insurance company provides better coverage for your particular situation, that might still be benificial.

Now about 2 months ago I managed to speak with a cancer specialist (I use this term to ensure anonymity) at a special Cancer hospital in the Netherlands.

Anthony V. D'Amico et al, Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. Like any socialized system, there is rationing.

Hello, I was looking to move to holland to give a better life to my wife and unborn daughter. However, their days of charging 10x as much for 1/10th the time will not last not matter what. Private insurance would cost about half(50%) of my current income. I am speaking of trhe quality of replacement lenses for people with cateracts. If we all have affordable preventive care, we may well avoid the high costs of major medical.

I believe myself to have nearly become a victim of one: A secret system of age restrictions that I have described elsewhere in print and online.