3 ms·

This is awesome. Can you think of any major downsides to an approach like the German system takes?

• nicbou 6y ago
  The private system is a bit of a problem. People with a high income (and the self-employed) end up switching to it save money, depriving the public system from their high contributions. It also means wealthy people get better access to healthcare, particularly mental health. It also means that in a bid to save money, self-employed people pick an option that's cheaper now (private), but will cost them a lot more over time, with no option to switch back. Normally, if you switch to private, you must stay on private. This prevents people from getting cheap private insurance when they're young, and cheap public insurance when they're old. In practice, you can just get a low income job for a year at age 50, and get forced back onto the cheaper public system. It's a solid financial decision.
  • brianwawok 6y ago
    This is similar to the Situation with affordable care act in the US. I think max vs min age premiums are capped. Which means old people get a deal, and young people overpay. If people paid their true cost to the system, insurance would cost $50 if you are 20, and $2,000 if you are 70. The same thing ultimately happens here where the young and healthy leave the public pool, leaving the older and sick. As rates go up, the cycle continues. I don’t see how anything except a $0 for everyone really works. Otherwise you just have people gaming the system (like the 50 year old in your example working a year of low paying job to qualify)