[ffsm8]

> public healthcare inaccessible despite paying more than 400€/month for it as a single individual.

That's a pretty new thing though (been getting worse for the last 10 yrs). And the person responsible for the legislature that caused this change is the current health minister.

Also... 400€? It's a percentage of your salary. And you're omitting that the employer pays the same amount, so you're effectively paying 800€ at the very least.

[asymmetric]

> Also... 400€? It's a percentage of your salary. And you're omitting that the employer pays the same amount, so you're effectively paying 800€ at the very least.

Not everybody is employed.

[Aerroon]

If you're not employed then aren't you expected to pay both halves yourself?

[fabian2k]

It is paid by the social security system in that case. If you're self-employed then you will have to pay both parts yourself.

[Aerroon]

Ah, that's nicer than here. In my EU country you just don't get healthcare if it's not paid. Funnily enough you can't just go and pay it either, it has to come through something like a job.

[generic92034]

> And the person responsible for the legislature that caused this change is the current health minister.

Could you please explain that a bit more?

[ffsm8]

He revamped pretty much evey monetary incentive a few years ago, which directly caused the "gold rush" privatization of hospitals etc, making a lot of treatments uneconomical. There has been a lot of coverage about it over the years - both by official channels and independent YouTubers and journalists, I'm not going to do it justice by summarizing it in a comment here.

A somewhat recent German video (2yrs old) is "Pflege katastrophe - exposed". But ARTE , DW and ZDF all have reported on it at this point

The controversy about diabetis patients getting amputations over simple treatments is a pretty well known symptom of this revamp, as operations get a very high payout

[carlosjobim]

> you're effectively paying 800€ at the very least.

That makes it worse! Not better.

[jonp888]

It's a collective payment system whereby everyone receives the same treatment, but high earners subsidize low earners, students and pensioners. Whether that is a good idea or not is of course a matter of debate, but it doesn't make sense to compare the benefits with the cost because they are not linked.

If you are a really high earner you can opt out and pay a private risk-based premium instead.

[carlosjobim]

The original commenter was complaining that he was paying €400 per month and not getting adequate service for what he is paying. Somebody else mentions that he's actually paying €800 per month (and not getting adequate service). That makes it even worse, and I'm surprised if somebody can not understand that.

[bombcar]

But as a higher earner he’s paying 800€ so that someone poorer can pay 100€ and not get adequate service. ;)

As an American I choose to ignore this and pretend that everywhere else has perfect healthcare and government.

[chmod775]

From that amount I can tell they're at or near the maximum amount you can pay (a software dev salary will usually get you there). It currently tops out at 421,76 Euro and doesn't increase any further from there.

Many people at that income bracket opt for private insurance, because it will be cheaper and provide you better care.

[blackmoon42]

Cheaper, when you are young and single. Get a family and pay for every member. Get older and see your rates increasing. Also the rates won't drop if you're a pensioner.

You need to know your future, as it's more or less a decision for life.