And when you're done doing so, and decide that it's not a good deal for the money, then you're told to do it again, and again, until you get the "right" answer the person patronizingly telling you to do so expects.
It's reasonable to have a discussion about the most reasonable, efficient, and appropriate way to fund certain things, as well as whether they should be funded at all, and whether funding them should be mandatory. Such discussions should not be derailed by people simply saying "think about what you get" as though the people participating in them haven't already thought about that just because they come to different conclusions.
I think it's unreasonable to express a simple (one-sided) argument within this subject and not expect a one-sided answer from someone.
It is truly a complex subject.
Now, I expect someone to disagree with that statement. :)
The contributions are not extortionately expensive. It may seem that way if you are healthy, high-earner, and young. But looking at the actual cost of providing healthcare it's pretty competitively priced. Over the lifetime of a person private health insurance is not that much cheaper. You can view the difference as a tax supporting the poor and chronically ill if you like.
Interesting tidbit that many people tend to forget about: Health care payments are capped. The maximum monthly income that gets counted is 4425 EUR/month of which about 14% get paid in total. So if you earn 10k a month you effectively pay a lower rate. The effective health care rate drops for high-earners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
