4 ms·

Statutory health insurances are Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts, which (as the name implies) are public institutions and very much not private companies.

Statutory health insurances are Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts, which (as the name implies) are public institutions and very much not private companies. They have the right to bear seals, can issue titles to collect missing payments, are bound to administration law, etc. It's the same legal designation as e.g. the city of Munich which hopefully nobody calls a "private company". It's really just their marketing which looks more corporate than what we are used to from most other public institutions. Many hospitals are part of a municipality or a university (again, established by public law), many others are organized as private companies (either publicly or privately owned). Non-hospital doctors are almost completely private entities.

odiroot 5y ago
> Statutory health insurances are Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts, which (as the name implies) are public institutions and very much not private companies. This is not so clear-cut as in other countries. Translated from Wiki: > As a public corporation with self-administration, a health insurance fund regulates its budget on its own responsibility. In doing so, it must fulfil legislative performance requirements (compulsory benefits) and may in some cases go beyond this (statutory benefits). According to § 260 para. 2 SGB V, its operating funds should not exceed one monthly expenditure.
- germanier 5y ago
  Not sure what point you are trying to make. It's not a "private company" (not even a closely regulated one) in any sense of the word "private" no matter where in the world that word it is used. Health care might be organized differently than in most other countries but that does not imply that those institution are private. Is the City of Munich also a private company? It has self-administration, is responsible for its own budget which can't be negative, has to operate within legislative bounds including giving compulsory benefits to its residents (which are exactly the criteria you quote). Of course not, that's a city. What about the Technical University of Munich? They even have "members" instead of residents in addition to the things above. It's all the exact same kind of legal entity. Saying one is public and the other one private doesn't make any sense. What's the difference between those in your eyes?

odiroot 5y ago

> Statutory health insurances are Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts, which (as the name implies) are public institutions and very much not private companies. This is not so clear-cut as in other countries. Translated from Wiki: > As a public corporation with self-administration, a health insurance fund regulates its budget on its own responsibility. In doing so, it must fulfil legislative performance requirements (compulsory benefits) and may in some cases go beyond this (statutory benefits). According to § 260 para. 2 SGB V, its operating funds should not exceed one monthly expenditure.

germanier 5y ago
Not sure what point you are trying to make. It's not a "private company" (not even a closely regulated one) in any sense of the word "private" no matter where in the world that word it is used. Health care might be organized differently than in most other countries but that does not imply that those institution are private. Is the City of Munich also a private company? It has self-administration, is responsible for its own budget which can't be negative, has to operate within legislative bounds including giving compulsory benefits to its residents (which are exactly the criteria you quote). Of course not, that's a city. What about the Technical University of Munich? They even have "members" instead of residents in addition to the things above. It's all the exact same kind of legal entity. Saying one is public and the other one private doesn't make any sense. What's the difference between those in your eyes?