4 ms·
I'd say restricting fully government paid healthcare to citizens is a good step. For non-citizens (full time residents etc) the government would give basic heal
by daemin 9y ago
I'd say restricting fully government paid healthcare to citizens is a good step. For non-citizens (full time residents etc) the government would give basic healthcare, but anything elective or above the baseline should be funded by that individual.
In general I would say that most of social safety net benefits should be applied to citizens, and then be scaled down for the other groups of people living there.
- ido 9y agoWhy should I get less than full health care if I pay the same income taxes and health insurance (15% of my wage on it's own)? If you restrict services to permanent residents than restrict the taxes we pay as well (btw I'm 100% certain I pay more in taxes than I consume in benefits, and Germany didn't even have to pay for my education or early life).
- daemin 9y agoI'm not saying restrict services to non-citizens, I'm saying do not have the government pay for those services for non-citizens. If you pay a private company for health insurance then you should be covered by that insurance for the things that the government won't cover. This is one easy way that the government could cut health related costs.
- ido 9y agoBut I am paying for these services, with 15% of my salary. Why should I have to additionally also pay for private insurance?
- daemin 9y agoNo, the Government of the place you are living is taking 15% of money out from your salary to pay for the services that it provides to both citizens and residents. It does not have to divide equally between the two groups.