Hacker News Reader

Comment by sajithdilshan | Hacker News Reader

The fucked up part is the forced solidarity and high barrier to exit the so called solidarity principle. You need 77,400€ annual salary to switch to private insurance in 2026 and in 2027 it will be increased to 84,150€.

View on HN

> The fucked up part is the forced solidarity

Of course it is forced, it has to be. What's the alternative? Make it voluntary, which immediately will lead to the total cost only being spread across sick people that definitely are going to cost the system money, resulting in an immediate increase in coverage cost, making it unavailable to a large part of the population? Just look at how well removal of the fee for non-coverage under the ACA worked in the US. That's just "let's take health insurance away from poor people" with more steps.

Not op, but it’s solidarity if money is freely given, let’s call it something else when money is taken without consent.

Why not call it taxes?

And there certainly is consent, given voters can choose to elect people who will change the system, or not.

Tyranny of the masses is a very strange notion of consent.

The Solidaritätsprinzip is named that to distinguish it from the Äquivalenzprinzip (equivalency principle) of private insurance: with private insurance, your cost rate is determined by the services you would like to have covered as well as the assessed risk that you will consume these services as calculated by the insurance carrier's actuaries. In Germany (and other European countries), the public option insurance instead only uses your income to determine your rate: the insured risks are common and paid by everyone together instead of by the individual.

"Solidarity" is a pretty good term for that abstract idea. What would you like to suggest instead?

And yeah, I understand that people that do not buy into the concept of a society pooling together such risk to create a model that works best in the aggregate instead of emphasizing individual choice are going to hate everything about this. If you want to be able to save money in exchange for taking on risk, such a society can't let you easily do that because it'll inevitably lead to a tragedy of the commons; such a society would also likely help you anyway if you made the wrong risk trade-offs and become a burden to the state.

Also, let's be clear: this principle is still very popular in Germany. I haven't lived there in a long time so I was curious and gave it 30 seconds. Admittedly the source here is an insurance carrier, but they found in a survey that while 66% of Germans last year were worried about insurance costs and the financial sustainability of the German healthcare system, 73% support the solidarity principle (https://www.aok.de/pp/gg/update/solidaritaet-gkv/)

Are you in favor of abolishing car insurance as well? It’s the same principle, pool money, pay out when necessary.

It lets everyone, including those less well off, enjoy relatively low insurance premiums and you get personal mobility in return.

I’m well off, part of the reason I’m well off is because I was lucky enough to be born in a place that provided lots of stability and opportunity (schooling, health care, et al), it’s nice to give back. Sure, there’s flaws and waste in places, but I’ve had a family member go through extensive medical treatment because of cancer and I genuinely wish that level of care and options for everyone, so paying my taxes and health insurance premiums it is!

The word „solidarity“ means here that you empathize with other people and contribute to shared prosperity and success. You share the healthcare system with a lot of people who make the country what it is. Some of them earn less, some earn more, and that‘s ok. With your contributions you make sure that those who bake your wonderful bread, run the public transport or clean the streets in your neighborhood are covered. If you would rather prefer American system with its deficiencies, because you are high earner and don‘t like to share, you can always go there. Dubai is also nice for people with some cash and tolerance to human rights violations.

What is really fucked up about Germany, is that exit to private insurance exists in principle, and our Bundesmimose Friedrich Merz have never used statutory one. The existing system has deteriorated only because nobody in the government is using it and has no clue what people now experience daily.

> What is really fucked up about Germany, is that exit to private insurance exists in principle, and our Bundesmimose Friedrich Merz have never used statutory one. The existing system has deteriorated only because nobody in the government is using it and has no clue what people now experience daily <

its designed that way, no worries.

Well, people would not want to pay more, so free solidarity can not work. The net result will be higher taxes, of course. The question is whether these costs are worth it or not, but not the "let people do what they want" as that won't work - see how US billionaires don't really give up their wealth voluntarily. And now, building a foundation is just an excuse to not give the money to the people. It is for their protection of wealth, not for solidarity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com