byecancer21

Effectively, this is government-mandated bundling. Now you must buy the extra service when taking a flight, whether you require it or not.

AF also tried to pull the codeshare thing with me once. Didn't want to go around in circles with customer service and found it easier to initiate litigation. AF then hired a big law firm to defend the tiny case.

A week before a scheduled court hearing their lawyer calls me to negotiate. I tell her there is nothing to negotiate about, and she agrees. We chat for an hour anyway which was surely billed to her client AF. I receive full payment two days later.

Haven't booked an AF flight since.

One way to think about this: as a founder you charge your seed investors, whose capital you deploy, say 85% (preferences notwithstanding). Why wouldn't you do it all on your own and retain 100%? Capital inflow is a multiplier for your efforts, sometimes a gatekeeper too.

My rate for private health insurance in Germany is nearly 9.6k EUR/yr, not including family.

This is a contract so terms can vary. Here: zero deductible, vision and dental included, international coverage including US. Includes a savings-like provision required by law. It is designed to keep rates affordable over time.

This mirrors my personal experience. To make a treatment decision, against the advice of my local doctors, that was key to survival I relied on US research.

To compare costs: For an extremely rare cancer, total cost of treatment was 100k EUR in Germany, whereas US patients report case costs of >2m USD.

Part of these savings stem from the public healthcare system not providing adequate treatment, while strictly necessary for a reasonable chance of survival in this case. What happens in Germany then is the amazing doctors do stuff anyway (if you can convince them), bill whatever they can, and write off the remainder. Profits from privately insured patients make up for this shortfall here.

Public healthcare being adequate is somewhat of a myth, for Germany at least.

I appreciate the offer. Otherwise I did have a superb experience with the medical system, that is real doctors not state workers with lapsed qualification.

I have nothing personally against the guy, responding to personal asks for a favor is inappropriate but simply how such things work.

This is simply a means to achieve the strictly necessary: to have two criminal offenders amongst judges removed from their appointments. Realistically this only happens if the prosecutors, which are directed by state politicians and are not independent, look bad to the public unless they handle the matter properly.

And that I do care very much about.

Thank you for your wishes. For future needs I was able to return to private health insurance which suffers from no such problem. However this cannot cover claims arisen prior to policy issue, so the subject matter remains open.

No judge ruling in this court actually has public health insurance.

This has realistically no more than a 10-15% chance of succeeding, not dissimilar to a startup. For either, it is perhaps better to not get attached too much to a specific outcome.

Consider I had just survived a rare cancer that kills nearly everyone who gets it quickly, then when addressing a serious side effect from treatment this happens.

Not claiming any moral high ground here. Many would descend into anger and despair or feelings of victimhood, I simply made a choice to play this like a game instead.

I appreciate your concern.

Her own staffer did ask me some time ago, unprompted, if she too must fear criminal charges. There exists proof of this.

I do feel bad for her and even the judge's superior, the court president, who I believe failed to take action not because she couldn't recognize the problem but because this judge wields more power than her boss.

Finally, some documents have been designated a state secret because public knowledge would be disadvantageous to the state, something I can agree with. These were circulated before I could interpret the acronyms thus outside my control now.