Talk:Healthcare in Germany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wrong Percentage

"some 449,000 Germans, or less than 0.1 percent of the population" 449,000 is not .1 % of 80,000,000 178.26.79.7 (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I wikified here, but didn't do too much. The topic is ambiguous. it has three topics: health care, health insurance, and diseases in Germany. It needs MAJOR work.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon here, IP 65.11.176.19

Added some tags: this article is a disaster.

• The introduction's source makes no reference to rank as explained
• The first section, while well-written and sourced, is quite general. Needs more content.
• The Public Insurance section is lacking in sources, and the last statement sounds extremely POV: "Intrinsic risk," e.g.
• The Private Insurance section needs major POV revision and accurate, factual sourcing
• The last section seems out of place/context: please find a way to mesh it into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.176.19 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• The notion/translation of "sickness funds" is completely weird (note also that no German equivalent is given) ... there is no German expression that remotely corresponds to this. The "public" health insurance institutions are called "Krankenkassen", which translates "sick persons' fund", if translated word-by-word, but more sensibly is translated as just "(public) health insurance"---the translation "sickness funds" strikes me as politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.32.106 (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Logical circle

There is a logical circle created by a link from health care in Germany to health insurance in Germany and a redirection link back to health care in Germany. The insurance system is not to be discussed in detail under healt car. Therefore a special topic Health insurance in Germany is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bertha (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

German acupuncture trials have no place

Thoroughly uncontroversial, but on request I'm stating it here as well as in the edit summary. A link to th German acupuncture trials is completely irrelevant to a main article on healthcare in Germany. It's about WP:Undue, I suggest you read that before you start edit-warring about something so trivial. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm commenting here because Wuerzele asked me for my perspective as an acupuncturist. IMO, although GERAC's primary relevance was to acupuncture research, it did and does bear on delivery of care insofar as they started reimbursing for acu based on GERAC's results. CFCF, were you taking that into account? A brief mention in the article body, if there were a section on CAM, would not be undue weight, and having it under "See Also" certainly seems appropriate. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Thank you Middle 8 for your opinion and suggestion, which goes in the direction I had in mind. What CFCF may not know is, that the German health care system is more, shall we say?, open to CAM than the US health care system. I am inviting the view of another German expat CookieMonster755, not knowing what he thinks.

I still don't understand CFCF's reasoning for the repeated deletion. I am asking him to expand on his reason. The post above contains no more thoughts than the edit summary did, except that it adds some insult, belittlement (trivial), and an accusation of edit warring, which is not true in the strict sense since per WP:BRD it was CF's turn to discuss his (bold) edit.

I would also like to be sure and hear that CF has no WP:COI with this, like paid editing, even if on the side. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason to think they have a COI? AGF and all... --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant to mention some trials. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it has no position in the see also section. If a well balanced section on the trails could be integrated into the article that is something else entirely. The see also section is for things that are clearly related, not just somehow. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Your delayed reply makes no sense at all: If a section of the German acupuncture trials is incorporated in the article, nobody needs a link in the 'see also'- section. And please learn how to file repsonses. Finally : Are you having a conflict of interest? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It is of too minor significance to the main topic of this article for the see also section, in the same way I'm not going to add the Framingham heart study to Heart. I am contesting your revert on mere principal and suggest you stop assuming bad faith. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge articles?

User:Brainy J has just proposed to merge Health Care System of Elderly in Germany into this article. I second this idea because I think it makes sense to include it here as healthcare for the elderly is part of general healthcare in this country.

BTW, there does not seem to be an overall system for the articles on social security. It appears that there has been a kind of uncontrolled growth over the years which has resulted in a lot of redirects and unsystematic naming of articles. I think we could use some cleanup on that as well in general.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense to distinguish between different groups of people in a basically universal system. There is no specific issue for the elderly in the German health financing system, so why merging this rather general text with specific aspects on population groups? (talk) 79.192.170.157 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose' merge: the article clearly hightlights several areas of elderly care which are distinctly different and deserve to be dealt with separately. The fact that there is no age-specific provision within the German health care system might even be seen as a critisism because it does not account for the needs of the specific population. Klbrain (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Altmed in germany

This article needs discussion of alt med in germany, where it is widely practiced and has been, way before the alt med movement started in the US. I added a "see also" to Reformhaus but I need to add some content. Just making a note... Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Simplified sentences, actual figures

I wonder if we could take some time to simplify some of the sentences in this article. Many of them are extremely long, and sometimes ambiguous. I made a few corrections, but I think there is a lot of work to do.

We should also specify that the figures we provide apply to a specific year. The amounts we discuss are known to change every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.14.42 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Healthcare for unemployed

The article doesn't mention whether the unemployed receive free healthcare, or how it works.

It says "Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them." -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Regional differences

This free paper documents the regional differences on prevalence and mortality rates for the major cardiovascular diseases (CVD) between the 16 federal states of Germany. To avoid to create another one-row section, I have cited it in the Major diagnosis, given that it is a statistical study and CVD are one of the most frequent diagnosis in the country (in 2002).Philosopher81sp (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Private vs. public

The article claims "They may also opt for private insurance, which is generally more expensive". This is highly dubious statement: Private insurance can bring significant savings for the reasonably young and healthy. The balance will turn as the insured aged, but the claim as it stands is highly misleading. I cannot (without research) make a statement of when the balance turns; but for someone who is healthy and earns enough to (otherwise) be forced to pay the maximal public rate, it is bound to be past 40, possibly even 50. 88.77.145.6 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement is not dubios, it is absolutely correct by considering the average values: In 2007 there have been about 50 million people directly insured in the public health insurance system in Germany; the systems includes family members (wife/husband and children under 27) without income for free: they get full insurance but don't pay any fees. The direct insured people payed about 149 billion Euro insurance fees. That makes about 2.980 Euros per direct insured person in average per year. In the same year the public health insurance payed for their members about 144 billion Euro. That makes about 2.880 Euros per direct insured person in average per year. In 2007 there have been about 8,5 million people insured in the private health insurance; the privats systems does NOT cover family members without income for free. These people payed about 29 billion Euros insurance fees. That makes about 3.411 per person in average per year. In the same year the private health insurance payed for there members about 18 billion Euros. That makes about 2.117 € per insurance contractor. This shows: the private fees are in average higher than the public ones, but you get less "money back" and you have no family benefit. And you have to consider one thing: if you are out of the public system it's very hard to go back, especially if you are older than 55 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bertha (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to update the numbers, read the German article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Krankenversicherung, some 25% of Germans are now insured through private insurance, this article on the other hand uses numbers from 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.103.47 (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I updated the numbers. They are now verified and sourced for 2021. Being intimately familiar with the private vs public insurance decision, I would remove any price comparison between the two. One is based on your income, the other is based on your health condition and coverage. So much is certain. The rest is speculation. 91.64.154.117 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)