Some of the GroenLinks healthcare plans are downright silly, thinks Barend van Lieshout
This is the second in a series by Barend van Lieshout on the healthcare plans of the main political parties

The GroenLinks manifesto has some good things in it. But also a lot of nonsense.
The key question with any manifesto is whether or not it will help achieve a structural reform of the health sector so we can continue to offer good quality healthcare on a smaller budget to people who need it. It’s a tall order for any political party because it requires a vision that stretches beyond the next four years. It also demands a focus on this important issue and the question is to what extent healthcare can be made into a party political punch ball.
Diamonds

But first let’s have a look at the diamonds in this manifesto. GroenLinks is concentrating on the effectiveness of the care for the elderly and the disabled. That is a clever move because the aging population is going to cause healthcare costs to go through the roof. GroenLinks wants people to be able to live independently for longer, with a network of local care facilities to support them. People will not have to depend on expensive intramural care if they can manage with home care which is much cheaper.
The personal care budget (PGB) is also a good campaigning choice. A lot of people in need of care are perfectly capable of single-handedly organising that care themselves. The banks have known this for ages: people who punch in the numbers of their own acceptgiros, will do so quicker, more accurately, cheaper and with more motivation.
But what makes the GroenLinks manifesto a joy to read are the outbursts of nonsense which crop up every now and again. And that’s leaving aside the means-tested insurance premium. What are we supposed to do, hand over our salary slips to the insurers? The mind boggles. Are we going to pay a means-tested tax at the tobacconists’s? Dog tax just for the more expensive breeds? Creating jobs was never easier: just let the insurance companies repeat the tax office’s job. I would be interested in the privacy watchdog’s views. If my insurance company is not allowed to see my mental healthcare diagnosis why would it be allowed to know all about my social-economic status which is a good indicator of my future care needs?
Medicinal stone

What really cracked me up, however, was the paragraph on VAT on alternative care. GroenLinks proposes to waive VAT on ‘high quality alternative care’ which is ‘effective’ into the bargain. What does that mean? An ISO 9001 certified medicinal stone? Your own urine served in a 100% sterile cup? Proving the effectiveness of alternative care is not exactly easy. How do you prove that your damaged aura is once more working satisfactorily and that your energy paths have been redirected to go neatly from A to B?
The nonsense category yields more treasure. If GroenLinks had anything to say about it, a big part of innovation and medical technology will be geared towards prevention and cost control. Does GroenLinks have a plan which will make the world’s medical technology industry turn around and listen to a small country without resources? Neither is GroenLinks one to ignore an open door when they see one: its respect patient confidentiality and is going to simplify hospital budget finance. That’s reform for you.
It’s a pity about the nonsensical ideas. They are diverting attention from the good ones. Maybe GroenLinks can enlist the help of a less colourful, and dependable coalition partner.
,
Barend van Lieshout is a healthcare advisor at Rebel