I consider Belgium having a generally admirable healthcare system but as of late our practicians have a tendency to opt out of the fully reimbursed program, at least in dentistry and eye doctors. So typically an appointment should be like 27€ and we get like 24 back but last eye doctor appointment was 70€… and getting an appointment in an opted-in specialist means years of delay. That and basically we have fewer and fewer doctors so it’s already fun to get an appointment altogether. So it’s still a trade off really even though we have overall a possible better deal.
Belgium definitely has a good system, most European countries do.
But all of our systems are going to get under a lot of stress, because an aging population requires more healthcare and there is a lack of medical personnel.
Throwing money at the problem is part of the solution, but it also fails in many ways: there is a risk that it just raises profits and salaries of health care professionals without adding more people to actually do more work. There is even a risk that health care professionals start working less thanks to higher rates. And finally, the money has to come from somewhere, i.e. we still need people to drive the rest of the economy.
It’s a taboo to say it, but it is inevitable that we will need to lower our level of healthcare consumption as the population ages.
It’s better to do it in a smart and deliberate way to minimize the impact, otherwise reality will force it in unpleasant ways, which is what you are witnessing now.
I agree with your opinion on the causes but I strongly disagree that we should accept to “lower our level of healthcare”; I’m absolutely fed up with dealing with the aftermath of the previous generations already. At least I want to be able to be taken care of.
The point made above is that decrease of the quality of our healthcare system is necessary due to an ageing population and its reliance on the system. Soooo yes kindof?
I consider Belgium having a generally admirable healthcare system but as of late our practicians have a tendency to opt out of the fully reimbursed program, at least in dentistry and eye doctors. So typically an appointment should be like 27€ and we get like 24 back but last eye doctor appointment was 70€… and getting an appointment in an opted-in specialist means years of delay. That and basically we have fewer and fewer doctors so it’s already fun to get an appointment altogether. So it’s still a trade off really even though we have overall a possible better deal.
Belgium definitely has a good system, most European countries do.
But all of our systems are going to get under a lot of stress, because an aging population requires more healthcare and there is a lack of medical personnel.
Throwing money at the problem is part of the solution, but it also fails in many ways: there is a risk that it just raises profits and salaries of health care professionals without adding more people to actually do more work. There is even a risk that health care professionals start working less thanks to higher rates. And finally, the money has to come from somewhere, i.e. we still need people to drive the rest of the economy.
It’s a taboo to say it, but it is inevitable that we will need to lower our level of healthcare consumption as the population ages.
It’s better to do it in a smart and deliberate way to minimize the impact, otherwise reality will force it in unpleasant ways, which is what you are witnessing now.
I agree with your opinion on the causes but I strongly disagree that we should accept to “lower our level of healthcare”; I’m absolutely fed up with dealing with the aftermath of the previous generations already. At least I want to be able to be taken care of.
Does your country have worse healthcare now because of previous generations?
The point made above is that decrease of the quality of our healthcare system is necessary due to an ageing population and its reliance on the system. Soooo yes kindof?
Oh ok that makes more sense thank you