this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
850 points (95.5% liked)

Actually Infuriating

310 readers
1070 users here now

Community Rules:

Be Civil

Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, ). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.

Content should be actually infuriatingPolitics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.

Mark NSFW/NSFL postsPlease mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.

Keep it Legal and MoralNo promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.

Partner Communities

founded 2 days ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There are different models. For example in Portugal and in the UK there's public health system where you have the right to health care as a citizen, and it's paid by social security, which is a tax on you income. In Germany you instead have mandatory insurance, but the government pays for you if you can't. This you pay a % of your salary but it's not considered a tax. In the end it's just different models of the same thing.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

In Germany you instead have mandatory insurance

Eeeeh. Isn't UK mandatory insurance too?

in the UK there's public health system where you have the right to health care as a citizen

Because it says as a citizen, not as a human being.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

No, it's called national insurance, but that's just the name they gave it when they started the national health service, state pension, and welfare for those out of work for whatever reason. It's just taxation.

It's free healthcare, not mandatory insurance. Nobody has to ever deal with an insurance company and decisions about your healthcare aren't made by profit motive driven companies.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If it does not cover all people, regardless of citizenship and residence, then I call it mandatory health insurance. Yes, it is state-run, but for me covering tourists too should be requirement for healthcare to be called universal.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I didn't call it universal, I called it free. A lot of tourists are covered because of reciprocal agreements with their countries.

It's not mandatory health insurance because you're covered whether you've paid the tax or not, cradle to grave, and the original hypothecated payments haven't covered it for decades.

It's free healthcare. I disagree very strongly with some people having an immigration ruling that they have no recourse to public funds, but that doesn't mean it isn't free healthcare.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago

Derp. You indeed did not say universal. My bad.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are the insurance providers in Germany public or for-profit private entities?

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 23 hours ago

There are both. Most people are on the public insurance which is non profit. Rich people sometimes move to private insurance.