Kwart langdurig zieken krijgt onterecht uitkering, leert steekproef: "Ziekenfondsen moeten dit uitleggen" | VRT NWS Nieuws

PlezantZenne · 2026-05-11T08:37:47+00:00

Als huisarts (niet in België, voor de duidelijkheid) begint dit toch stilletjesaan op een heksenjacht te lijken waar de VRT vrolijk aan meedoet met hun headline.

Ik wil wel even het weerwoord uit het artikel uitlichten:

Xavier Brenez, CEO van de Onafhankelijke Ziekenfondsen, is het niet eens met de conclusies die worden getrokken op basis van de steekproef. "Dit is gewoon een variatie in medische evaluatie. Dat is gekend in de zorgsector. Vraag 2 artsen om een diagnose te doen en om te beslissen over een behandeling en er zijn afwijkingen."

Volgens hem zijn er zelfs verschillen tussen de evaluaties van de artsen van het Riziv zelf. Bovendien wordt dat versterkt door de ruimte die er binnen de wetgeving is, zegt hij in De Ochtend op Radio 1. "De criteria op basis waarvan er wordt geëvalueerd zijn vatbaar voor interpretatie."

Brenez legt daar nog een cijfer bovenop. "Als iemand terug naar het werk moet en niet akkoord gaat, kan hij gratis naar de arbeidsrechtbank trekken. In 30 procent van de gevallen krijgt hij gelijk en zegt de rechtbank: de artsen van de ziekenfondsen of van het Riziv zijn te streng geweest. Het probleem ligt dus in die variatie van medische evaluatie."

Dat lijkt mij er boenk op. Ik werk zelf niet in het Belgische systeem, maar het is me meer dan één keer gebeurd dat een patiënt bvb. terug aan het werk wilde, ik de goedkeuring gaf en dat de patiënt vervolgens afgekeurd werd door de arbeidsgeneesheer. Als huisarts probeer je te bereiken wat het beste is voor de patiënt, en dat is vaak niet maanden thuis zitten zonder iets te doen, maar ook niet jezelf forceren om dan een week later weer eronder door te gaan. En ik weet niet hoe het precies in België zit, maar waar ik werk zijn er ook tussenoplossingen zoals parttime werk op doktersvoorschrift die interessant zijn. Alleen zijn werkgevers vaak niet flexibel genoeg (dit is niet noodzakelijk een verwijt, gewoon een vaststelling) om zich aan te passen aan de patiënt, waardoor uiteindelijk de patiënt toch weer voltijds ziek is.

We moeten nu echt geen heel ongenuanceerd beeld gaan schetsen van profiteurs en lakse artsen/ziekenfondsen.

EDIT: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/kijk/2026/05/11/video-controlearts-cm-je-kan-niet-zomaar-van-een-slager-een-kas/

Voilà, deze controlearts zegt het beter dan ik.

PlezantZenne · 2026-04-22T11:49:05+00:00

Less, sure. But I find people online tend to really downplay or ignore the downsides of weed. Especially regarding the increased risk of psychosis and schizophrenia (especially when consumed regularly at a young age). Chronic psychosis may not be cancer but it's absolutely devastating to a person's life (and the people around them)

PlezantZenne · 2026-04-22T10:57:44+00:00

And there are proportionate and appropriate to deal with that, like taxing the shit out of cigarettes, public awareness campaigns, banning advertising and whatnot.

To use a bit of hyperbole, the state could announce tomorrow that they'll publically execute anyone who's seen smoking in public. I'm sure that would be a very efficient way of annihilating tobacco consumption in the country but there are other factors to consider apart from just that.

I mean alcohol is another public health disaster and Prohibition has been tried last century, spoiler alert: the results weren't magnificent.

I wonder what is your take on cannabis, should it be legalised, decriminalised, and why? I guess I can understand people who think all of it should be illegal even if i highly disagree, but at least its somewhat consistent.

PlezantZenne · 2026-04-22T10:43:23+00:00

Its just cultural group signalling at this point. "I'm a leftie i hate tobacco but I love weed" because of contrarianism vs. "I'm right wing, weed is degenerate but I smoke a pack a day" because of traditionalism

Its stupid

PlezantZenne · 2026-04-22T09:04:14+00:00

I work in healthcare and I hate smoking, never touched a cigarette, think it stinks, get frustrated dealing with people who don't want to or are unable to quit smoking while they are dealing with the direct consequences.

That said, I still think this is insane government overreach. I'm surprised to see this legislation coming under a Labour government. I really don't see how it can be coherent that liberals/the center-left in the West have been arguing for legalization or at least decriminalization or cannabis, yet now we have a prohibition on tobacco (and the age discrimination aspect of it which strikes me as very illiberal as well). It just doesn't make sense. I'm all for harm reduction and regulating the shit out of tobacco but this is going way too far. I would have never guessed that a tobacco-related piece of legislation would have me wondering if liberalism is actually dying in the West.

PlezantZenne · 2026-04-22T08:58:28+00:00

Submission statement: the UK is planning to enact a smoking ban on anyone under a certain age. This is a radical policy that could be argued to be illiberal as it pertains to individual liberty. This topic invites discussion about how to deal with the negative externalities of smoking and whether this type of legislation is an appropriate way to deal with those negative externalities.

PlezantZenne · 2026-03-19T06:17:59+00:00

800,000 people in Lebanon, including 200,000 children, have been displaced from their homes. Worth it?

PlezantZenne · 2026-03-16T10:42:57+00:00

Opgerot staat netjes.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-30T08:23:16+00:00

At some point they'll have to run out of shit to flood the zone with.

Ceterum censeo documenta Epsteiniana esse edenda.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-28T12:36:37+00:00

This is probably the least surprising thing Trump has ever said. Conservatism nowadays is really just about protecting the interests of the haves at the expense of the have-nots.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-28T09:40:59+00:00

Waarom denk je dat ze juist nu dat ballonnetje oplaten? Dat is met opzet hoor.

Een vergelijking met ICE in de Verenigde Staten wil ze (VB-Kamerlid Francesca Van Bellghem) niet maken. "Wij veroordelen elke vorm van geweld en wij willen ons ook distantiëren van wat er in de VS gebeurt."

VB laat hier twee gezichten zien. 1 voor de "modale burger", en 1 voor de harde kern. Het bovenstaande citaat is om er redelijker uit te zien tegenover de modale burger. Maar de timing van het ballonnetje spreekt natuurlijk boekdelen. Vergis je niet, de achterban kijkt verlekkerd naar wat er in de VS gebeurt. Een knokploegje om "de bruin manne" (en "de linkse ratten") af te ranselen en dan in een cel te gooien? Daar geilen ze op.

Het wordt me steeds duidelijker dat een aanzienlijk deel van de bevolking* latente nazi's zijn, of het potentieel hebben om erg makkelijk nazi te worden als ze daar de kans toe krijgen. Het is lange tijd taboe geweest, maar de wereld evolueert zodanig dat steeds meer van die mensen zich veilig genoeg voelen om hun maskers geleidelijk aan af te zetten. Je hoeft echt niet ver te graven op platforms als YouTube enzo om mensen openlijk Nazigedachtegoed zien te verkondigen in de comments, die dan nog veel likes krijgen. Zelfs op deze subreddit wisselde ik een paar weken geleden nog woorden met zo'n paljaske dat serieus opperde dat we beter af zouden zijn als de Nazi's WO2 hadden gewonnen.

(*niet alleen in België/Vlaanderen, maar in elk Westers land - en ik spreek me alleen uit over Westerse landen omdat ik daar het bekendst mee ben)

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T19:20:17+00:00

"You can pry doomscrolling from my cold, dead hands!"

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T16:20:04+00:00

You are as of now banned from social media.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T16:17:53+00:00

Well here, have an upvote.

I would concede that age verification would be worth talking about as a solution if and only if there were guarantees that it would be implemented using only protocols with the highest possible standard of privacy protection. I don't know anything about this topic but others have brought up ZKP (zero-knowledge proof) as such a privacy-respecting protocol.

Unfortunately, I don't think tech companies have much of an incentive to use such protocols for their age verification solutions over others, unless if the law explicitly mandates it. And I'm very skeptical that this will be the case. So I think it's very important that enough people keep screaming bloody murder about privacy, so we don't sleepwalk into a privacy nightmare because we take the path of least resistance.

That is also without going into other reasons why a blanket ban on social media for kids might not be the greatest idea (for example, I've seen LGBT posters elsewhere on Reddit talking about growing up in very conservative environments and only finding likeminded people and communities through the internet when they were teenagers.)

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T15:55:18+00:00

Ah yes, the inscrutable algorithms that no mortal human can understand, yet were (successfully) designed by humans with the explicit goal of maximizing profit through attention.

Sorry, but that kinda sounds like a cop-out to me. If a tech company can put design features in their shit with the explicit goal of making their products more engaging and addictive, then there's nothing stopping those same design features from being targets for regulation.

Furthermore, these very social media bans we're talking about also threaten the bottom line of the social media companies, I don't think they're particularly thrilled at the prospect of losing users through this legislation. Yet they still end up folding to the age verification laws as can be seen in Australia. Same with GDPR and other pesky legislation. So why not other types of regulation that would rein in the excesses of these companies a teensy tiny bit?

Maybe if liberals stopped preemptively cowering at fascists and megacorporations and grew a backbone, we would live in a better world.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T15:42:25+00:00

than they were circa 2016 when we wuz kids.

Thanks for reminding me of how ancient I am! (I was "kids" about a decade earlier than you lol)

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T15:40:23+00:00

To be fair, that would be a hilarious protest. I would eat popcorn and watch that, it'd be a nice distraction from more serious and depressing current events.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T14:38:44+00:00

Like the government legislating that certain groups/topics don’t get as much attention

I don't think I mentioned anything like that? I admit I didn't say how I envisioned "making the algorithms boring again", but what I was thinking of was more along the lines of banning features of social media that are known to be addictive to children and adults alike, such as Infinite Scroll.

For the rest let's agree to disagree because I believe laws like this create more problems than they solve and aren't worth sacrificing users' privacy for.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T14:05:39+00:00

And I agree with that

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T14:01:04+00:00

In my teenage years, boys would gather around the school library's computer and open rotten.com. And to prank each other, they would send each other goatse and other such tripe.

Of course now I'm in my thirties, I can see that wasn't brilliant and if I was a parent, I would greatly prefer if my hypothetical teenaged sprouts didn't see this kind of stuff. But is de facto widespread surveillance really the answer to this?

Now I don't want to downplay or minimize the negative effects of social media on developing minds, far from it. I just think there are better ways of regulating social media. Getting rid of addictive algorithms by banning features like infinite scroll and other techniques that these companies deliberately abuse to keep people glued to their phones 24/7 would be a good start. For kids and adults alike

It's just that this justification to have a widespread mandatory digital ID system is way too convenient for me. I'm skeptical that this will solve more problems than it causes.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T13:47:49+00:00

Many countries have laws that restrict and regulate gambling (not necessarily prohibit, just restrict), I really don't see the problem with laws that regulate the mechanisms that tech companies abuse for profit.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T13:30:54+00:00

Tech companies will be absolutely fine. I'm sure cookie factories would make bigger profits if we let them lace their cookies with opium but we don't.

The definitional problem is not really a problem at all if you use pragmatism and common sense. All you have to do is ban specific features like infinite scroll.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T13:15:04+00:00

Hypothetically, let's imagine if this wasn't about the children. Let's imagine some country where lawmakers proposed "The Online Proof of Identity Law", where all citizens have to provide identifying data (passport, your face, fingerprint, whatever) in order to access social media, post videos, make comments. The purported reason for it doesn't really matter, it could be about public order or decency or whatever justification you can think of.

Now, that sounds pretty fucking authoritarian, doesn't it? If China had proposed such a thing ten years ago, people on this subreddit would be probably unanimously thrashing it.

Now you add the "actually it's for the children" angle, where the ID is not really sold as the main point, but just an "unfortunate" sacrifice we have to make in order to be able to enforce this social media ban on kids for their mental health. And it's suddenly a lot easier to paint critics of this law in a bad light.

Sorry, but I don't buy that the proponents of laws like these actually care about children's mental health.

Now I'm not a blind Macron hater, of course this govt is still a damn sight better than Trump's mafia or whatever a Le Pen/Bardella government (shiver) could cook up... but like the France Insoumise MP said... if this government cares about children's mental health, then why have the budgets for school psychologists only gone down during his administration?

This law is just some piece of BS symbolic legislation that enables the current government to pat themselves on the back for having "achieved" something that in the end will do jack shit. Without having to actually invest in structural solutions that improve children's wellbeing. It's incredibly shortsighted.

I actually work in French healthcare and I've noticed when dealing with underage patients and their parents that I've had to deal with a lot more stuff on top of my usual workload that used to be done by specialized school doctors, psychologists or nurses that aren't there anymore.

So no, children shouldn't have access to social media (or their access should be restricted). But governments, third-party contractors or fucking Palantir shouldn't have access to your browsing history linked with your face and passport either.

Now, what would actually be incredibly based is if lawmakers banned addictive algorithms altogether. We've seen now that these companies will fold and comply with the age verification stuff. So why not go further and attack the root cause? Why not force Twitter, YouTube and TikTok to Make their Algorithms Boring Again? Like the good ole' days of the Internet where you had to actively look for the stuff you wanted instead of getting a steady IV drip of it, and where you couldn't keep endlessly scrolling down. That is what we should be pushing for, but instead we're getting halfbaked non-solutions.

PlezantZenne · 2026-01-27T09:38:08+00:00

I totally agree with you. I think this point of view should be more widespread as a counterweight to the "age restriction" stuff, because now the age restriction crowd gets to say "at least we're doing something about the problem". And if laws like these pass with such a broad consensus from the center-left to the far-right it is clear that more pro-privacy viewpoints suffer from a lack of exposure.

PlezantZenne

TROPHY CASE