45 ms·

Germany has a split system between mandatory government healthcare and voluntary private healthcare, once you pass a certain income threshold (about 80% above a

by ascar 8y ago

Germany has a split system between mandatory government healthcare and voluntary private healthcare, once you pass a certain income threshold (about 80% above average income) or are self-employed. There are differences. The voluntary insurance usually pays 2x to 3x of the mandatory one and covers more treatments that are seen as optional by the government insurance. E.g. physiotherapy is covered by government insurance only for clear indications while private insurances might cover it as a precautionary measure in many more cases. Also private patients can usually skip some waiting time (e.g. days instead of a few weeks). But (nearly) everyone is covered, government or private, and can go to the doctor without worrying about money. Even the government insurance isn't a single entity, but you can choose between multiple providers. All charge the same 14.6% of pre-tax income (capped at ~55k income) plus an additional 0.7% to 1.x% depending on the provider. They also compete on additional services. E.g. my provider adds a free professional tooth-cleaning per year and free travel-vaccination among other things.

null000 8y ago
> Also private patients can usually skip some waiting time (e.g. days instead of a few weeks). See, now, that just really doesn't sound like a good idea to my ears. Why should someone be forced to sit through weeks of suffering while a handful of others don't, for the sole reason that they have more money to throw at the problem? I can understand buying better or more thorough treatment, or buying treatment from more expensive providers I guess, but line jumping via money just seems immoral when it comes to health care.
- ascar 8y ago
  Why do you think line-jumping is more immoral than getting worse treatment? In one case you just have to wait in non life-threatening and non-urgent cases (you only have to wait if you actually can wait). In the other case you are actually in a worse physical or mental position.
  - asdff 8y ago
    This is like if the whole town is on fire, but you have enough money to pay the fireman to save your house first. Priority access to universal needs shouldn't be given based on personal wealth. I wonder if the people who wrote this line jumping into law qualified for the public or private insurance.
    - RHSeeger 8y ago
      > universal needs Not everyone agrees Person A's needs should be paid for by other people. The system described (that pays for everyone, but treats people that can afford it better) may be a reasonable compromise to those people.
      - asdff 8y ago
        Yet everyone uses the roads, schools, and safety paid for by everyone to ultimately get to their advantaged economic position. Healthcare is a public effort just like any of the above, and no one should suffer unequally due to class favoritism being built into public efforts. We shouldn't compromise with people who lack the humanity to see this.
        RHSeeger 8y ago
        To be clear, I'm in favor of everyone having healthcare. To some extent, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Also to some extent, I think getting from where the US is to everyone having healthcare is a very difficult trip to make. That being said... - There is no way to support roads without everyone supporting them for everyone. It's not possible to pay for "just the roads I use". - Educating the next generation helps everyone. - Keeping someone else healthy does not help me in any real way (I disagree with this, but it is a viewpoint that can be had).
        asdff 8y ago
        It does help you in a real way just as existentially as educating the next generation helps everyone. A healthy population is an economically productive population, and ensuring people get preventative care on time prevents strain on emergency services and saves the whole system money. In fact, this is how private insurance works too, your regular bill pays for other customers services, yet private insurance is somehow not viewed with the same contempt by conservatives.
- foepys 8y ago
  It is already illegal, yet practiced widely because the burden of proof is on the patient that cannot look into the doctor's records because of privacy.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by ascar 8y ago

null000 8y ago

> Also private patients can usually skip some waiting time (e.g. days instead of a few weeks). See, now, that just really doesn't sound like a good idea to my ears. Why should someone be forced to sit through weeks of suffering while a handful of others don't, for the sole reason that they have more money to throw at the problem? I can understand buying better or more thorough treatment, or buying treatment from more expensive providers I guess, but line jumping via money just seems immoral when it comes to health care.

ascar 8y ago
Why do you think line-jumping is more immoral than getting worse treatment? In one case you just have to wait in non life-threatening and non-urgent cases (you only have to wait if you actually can wait). In the other case you are actually in a worse physical or mental position.
- asdff 8y ago
  This is like if the whole town is on fire, but you have enough money to pay the fireman to save your house first. Priority access to universal needs shouldn't be given based on personal wealth. I wonder if the people who wrote this line jumping into law qualified for the public or private insurance.
  - RHSeeger 8y ago
    > universal needs Not everyone agrees Person A's needs should be paid for by other people. The system described (that pays for everyone, but treats people that can afford it better) may be a reasonable compromise to those people.
    - asdff 8y ago
      Yet everyone uses the roads, schools, and safety paid for by everyone to ultimately get to their advantaged economic position. Healthcare is a public effort just like any of the above, and no one should suffer unequally due to class favoritism being built into public efforts. We shouldn't compromise with people who lack the humanity to see this.
      - RHSeeger 8y ago
        To be clear, I'm in favor of everyone having healthcare. To some extent, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Also to some extent, I think getting from where the US is to everyone having healthcare is a very difficult trip to make. That being said... - There is no way to support roads without everyone supporting them for everyone. It's not possible to pay for "just the roads I use". - Educating the next generation helps everyone. - Keeping someone else healthy does not help me in any real way (I disagree with this, but it is a viewpoint that can be had).
        asdff 8y ago
        It does help you in a real way just as existentially as educating the next generation helps everyone. A healthy population is an economically productive population, and ensuring people get preventative care on time prevents strain on emergency services and saves the whole system money. In fact, this is how private insurance works too, your regular bill pays for other customers services, yet private insurance is somehow not viewed with the same contempt by conservatives.
foepys 8y ago
It is already illegal, yet practiced widely because the burden of proof is on the patient that cannot look into the doctor's records because of privacy.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]