5 ms·

It's funny that you take private health insurance as an example for a better working system. Those private health insurances are only open to better earning ind

It's funny that you take private health insurance as an example for a better working system. Those private health insurances are only open to better earning individuals. That's a concept which those evil downvoters here on HN do reject.

rglullis 10y ago
And it's funny how you'd rather downvote me reflexively instead of finding a way to engage in an useful exchange of ideas. Please, do not downvote because of disagreement. I am voting you up as a sign of confidence that you can do better. Let's try again, then: please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? And what guarantees can be given by you that your proposal for a "fully-public" healthcare system would be more effective than the existing ones? It is very easy to say "If Canada/Denmark/Sweden can do it, the US can do it as well", but for every well-reputed public system in the world, there is a bigger number of total disgraceful care systems around the world. > That's a concept which those evil downvoters here on HN want to prevent. The evil part is not in the downvoting. The evil part is in joining the mob rule, acting without any critical thought just because and just side along with your group identity, and in the end still consider yourself "being part of the good ones". What is that you want to prevent? Me, a supposedly middle-class citizen, of being able to make a choice? For whose benefit? Will the poor and less fortunate be in a better situation if we force everyone else to be stripped of their choices? At what cost? Are the countries with actual "universal, single-payer healthcare" being the most effective when managing the resources from their citizens?
- DanBC 10y ago
  You keep mentioning voting. Some people reflexively downvote any post that talks about votes. If you didn't mention voting you may get fewer downvotes.
  - rglullis 10y ago
    I don't care about getting the votes. I do care about pointing out irrational behavior. In this case, I am pretty sure it was the person I responded to because I saw the karma score drop right along with the response to my previous comment.
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      So you don't care about votes, but you seem to reserve some storage place in your brain for your HN karma and deploy some real time monitoring for it? > I do care about pointing out irrational behavior. Can't find anything about "pointing out irrational behavior" in your post, just some rage about "unsubstantiated" downvotes. I upvoted your parent comment now, maybe that helps cooling down.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  Cool down, i didn't downvote you. > please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. If at all you will have system of two classes of people like we had in the middle age. Germany already has this two class system within their health system.
  - rglullis 10y ago
    > The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. 1) There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". Like I said up-thread: we can't code compassion into law, and every time we tried it, the long term consequences have been more damaging than beneficial. 2) I am not "rich", and I'd rather have the option. I want the best care that is possible at the most affordable price. The "public" system is not really free. > Germany already has this two class system within their health system. That is quite a bit of hyperbole, and wrong. There is nothing classist about a business that needs money to operate. If anything, the real classism in Germany shows when you see something like the Künstlersozialkasse, where the Government pays part of the health insurance only to some type of people.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      > There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". That depends on your moral compass and your level of egoism. > That is quite a bit of hyperbole, and wrong. I guess you never tried to get an appointment with a medical specialists in Germany with a non private insurance.

rglullis 10y ago

And it's funny how you'd rather downvote me reflexively instead of finding a way to engage in an useful exchange of ideas. Please, do not downvote because of disagreement. I am voting you up as a sign of confidence that you can do better. Let's try again, then: please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? And what guarantees can be given by you that your proposal for a "fully-public" healthcare system would be more effective than the existing ones? It is very easy to say "If Canada/Denmark/Sweden can do it, the US can do it as well", but for every well-reputed public system in the world, there is a bigger number of total disgraceful care systems around the world. > That's a concept which those evil downvoters here on HN want to prevent. The evil part is not in the downvoting. The evil part is in joining the mob rule, acting without any critical thought just because and just side along with your group identity, and in the end still consider yourself "being part of the good ones". What is that you want to prevent? Me, a supposedly middle-class citizen, of being able to make a choice? For whose benefit? Will the poor and less fortunate be in a better situation if we force everyone else to be stripped of their choices? At what cost? Are the countries with actual "universal, single-payer healthcare" being the most effective when managing the resources from their citizens?

DanBC 10y ago
You keep mentioning voting. Some people reflexively downvote any post that talks about votes. If you didn't mention voting you may get fewer downvotes.
- rglullis 10y ago
  I don't care about getting the votes. I do care about pointing out irrational behavior. In this case, I am pretty sure it was the person I responded to because I saw the karma score drop right along with the response to my previous comment.
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    So you don't care about votes, but you seem to reserve some storage place in your brain for your HN karma and deploy some real time monitoring for it? > I do care about pointing out irrational behavior. Can't find anything about "pointing out irrational behavior" in your post, just some rage about "unsubstantiated" downvotes. I upvoted your parent comment now, maybe that helps cooling down.
tobltobs 10y ago
Cool down, i didn't downvote you. > please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. If at all you will have system of two classes of people like we had in the middle age. Germany already has this two class system within their health system.
- rglullis 10y ago
  > The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. 1) There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". Like I said up-thread: we can't code compassion into law, and every time we tried it, the long term consequences have been more damaging than beneficial. 2) I am not "rich", and I'd rather have the option. I want the best care that is possible at the most affordable price. The "public" system is not really free. > Germany already has this two class system within their health system. That is quite a bit of hyperbole, and wrong. There is nothing classist about a business that needs money to operate. If anything, the real classism in Germany shows when you see something like the Künstlersozialkasse, where the Government pays part of the health insurance only to some type of people.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    > There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". That depends on your moral compass and your level of egoism. > That is quite a bit of hyperbole, and wrong. I guess you never tried to get an appointment with a medical specialists in Germany with a non private insurance.