This is such an insane lens to view life from.

I once used an angle grinder in a reckless way, without proper protection. It went bad and they had to stitch me back together in the emergency room. I didn't have to pay anything, Techniker Krankenkasse covered everything.

How would you feel if i would have continued my reckless use of the device? I would surely end up in the hospital again. The wages for the medical staff have to come from somewhere.

This whole mechanism indirectly makes other TK insured people pay for my own recklessness.

I’d understand it as an inherent consequence of a socialised healthcare system and, because this isn’t my first day, know that policing for the purpose of reducing socialised healthcare burden is ultimately nonsensical and futile because there’s simply no appropriately place to ‘draw the line’.

If you aren’t for paying to remedy behaviour that someone considers ‘reckless’ then you don’t truly believe in socialised healthcare, because everyone has a different idea of “reckless”, and beyond that, socialised healthcare that doesn’t cover people living life to its fullest isn’t really socialised healthcare.

All you’re really doing is having realisation about your true political leanings. This really has nothing to do with the original topic.

Does wearing my face shield have any use then except from saving me from the pain if something happens?

I think you answered your own question by admitting that you no longer used the device recklessly after that event. Clearly money was not the factor in helping you learn the lesson.

Our bodies have a built-in mechanism to discourage recklessness, which is pain. That is the cost of recklessness, and all adding financial costs does is make people who genuinely do need medical attention think twice about getting it.

The face shield was gifted to me and i was asked to use it.

>Screens in bed fuck up your sleep cycle.

Not mine. I can barely look at it for more than five minutes before I fall asleep anyway.

>But everyone insured has a financial incentive to prevent other insured people with the same insurance from doing risky stuff.

First off, that's a really, really short road to hell you're paving there.

Second, JFC, we're not even talking about hard drugs or motorcycles here. At scale the "cost" of phones are likely a rounding error compared to stuff everyone agrees is bad or high risk. If that is worthy of intervention on behalf of the insurers then you might as well give up any hope of day to day autonomy because surely every other decision is worthy of intervention too.

Please elaborate how that road leads to hell. I'm still not in the position to prohibit others from behaviors, but i have a reason to disapprove.

When's the campaign against 5+ hour long meetings in sequence, or any of the other discomforts?

Don't book what could be an email, please. Said mostly in jest, no heat intended.