>>>>>>It is a missconception that here in the netherlands the government is the boss of the healthcare. Its the regulator, nothing more and nothing less. The insurance companies are still commercial as is the rest of the healthcare. The government only forced everyone to insure themselves.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't address this before as, frankly, I know very little about the Dutch system. From what I've recently read it appears to be similar to a recently adopted plan here in Massachusetts. If I'm reading correctly, the system went through numerous changes since the 1980s when price controls and central planning were the norm. Starting in the 90s through as recently as 2006 several reforms have completely turned the system away from central planning and towards the free market. The main aspect of governmental influence now is that all citizens are required to purchase private insurance. In addition the providers and insurers are incentivized to provide high quality and low price by the citizens ability to change providers once per year.
>>>
>>>Essentially you are right here. It is as you describe it. The new norm has been bringing all kinds of public services 'towards the free market'. This norm is now criticized more and more. Many have regret about 'we' having sold certain public services to private companies. The benefits of the free market have not shown in every case.
>>>
>>>>While I object to the idea of people being forced to have insurance in a free country, this would be a far greater alternative to what's currently being proposed here.
>>>
>>>The problem with medical care is that it can become very costly, the very minute that you get really sick. E.g. cancer or multiple sclerose or handicapped. Too costly for an individual, unless being a millionaire. The costs can only be tackled if all people participate. Same is true for old age income. It was the democratic, but unevitable, outcome of a debate that we decided to force participation, exactly for that reason. Can a majority in a civilized (and therefore of course free) country force individuals in that country to participate in certain public services? If you think that this can not be the case, then your conception of civilisation and freedom is fundametally different from mine.
>>
>>I do agree that the price of participation in a civilized country is to pay for certain public services. I do not agree that insurance specifically, nor health care in general qualifies. In addition, I certainly do not believe those public services should be predominantly under national control. They should be voted on and provided by the states and local municipalities.
>
>Well, in the Netherlands people are forced only to participate in the BASIC insurance. All kinds of extra care is optional. How about such a system?

I'm fundamentally opposed to the concept of mandating that an individual purchase health insurance.

In addition, I think it's a little soon to judge the system. As I understand, the Dutch system was last reformed in 2006 the same year that Commonwealth Care was adopted in Massachusetts. I do not feel there has been enough time to accurately asses the systems. Both are showing cracks and it's a matter of can they be fixed or is there a fundamental flaw in the concept? I honestly do not know. If, in time, the system demonstrates an ability to bring in free market principals while providing acceptable care at an affordable price, I imagine it will take off like wildfire, regardless of my opinion. For me, empowering the citizenry is the best way to achieve success.