3 ms·

> The public insurance system isn't being defunded or privatized, and it's the one that struggles to pay for services and requires a lot of taxes to kept uprigh

> The public insurance system isn't being defunded or privatized, and it's the one that struggles to pay for services and requires a lot of taxes to kept upright That's intentional. Part of the crippling of the public healthcare is done to force the people to go to private healthcare, who then bill the government for the services. Its how they such taxpayer money during the privatization phase. > Yeah, no, it's been set up this way since the beginning, feel free to look into it instead of speculating No public healthcare system was set up this way 40 years ago. Even in jurisdictions that had the potential to end up like this because of what was legally allowed, nowhere in the West it was like this. Creeping privatization of the last 40 years did this. Nothing else. Its time people stopped rationalizing and justifying how things are tumbling downhill.

luckylion 4y ago
> No public healthcare system was set up this way 40 years ago. Okay. I mean, you could look it up [1] and check when the private insurance companies and coops (kinda) in Germany were founded, or you could just declare that it definitely wasn't ever done so. Whatever floats your boat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
- unity1001 4y ago
  You must have missed the part that I said that there being legal allowances for the system to have turned out how it is now does not mean that it was set up like that. Solely the strong presence of the state and the state rendering sufficient number of services can keep things under control in an actual mixed landscape through the pressure of pricing and availability. Which was the case in most jurisdictions. Privatization in such systems starts when the state supplied services are crippled by 'reformers'. Even in wholly public systems, first allowing 'some' private medicine then strangling the public one to channel the activity to private ones and then justify privatizing everything is the go-to tactic.

luckylion 4y ago

> No public healthcare system was set up this way 40 years ago. Okay. I mean, you could look it up [1] and check when the private insurance companies and coops (kinda) in Germany were founded, or you could just declare that it definitely wasn't ever done so. Whatever floats your boat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

unity1001 4y ago
You must have missed the part that I said that there being legal allowances for the system to have turned out how it is now does not mean that it was set up like that. Solely the strong presence of the state and the state rendering sufficient number of services can keep things under control in an actual mixed landscape through the pressure of pricing and availability. Which was the case in most jurisdictions. Privatization in such systems starts when the state supplied services are crippled by 'reformers'. Even in wholly public systems, first allowing 'some' private medicine then strangling the public one to channel the activity to private ones and then justify privatizing everything is the go-to tactic.