The citizens insurance is a label fraud
If the SPD's election manifesto has its way, a so-called citizen insurance should guarantee that everyone gets the best medical care regardless of their income. So here there should be a room that is free of class differences. It is known that medical care can also be bought for money. It goes without saying that the wealthy would continue to buy supplies that they deemed appropriate. How should a citizen insurance change anything if you don't change ownership at the same time?
As is well known, the Count of Thurn and Taxis has twice astern implanted a new heart. And in Göttingen, a rich Russian had a donor liver implanted in it, and as if to mock it, the district court also referred to the Basic Law in order to justify this process. And the doctor, who traveled to Jordan with a donated liver to transplant it to a member of the Jordanian royal family, has never been charged. Such excesses could stop a self-confident judiciary or a committed legislator, but never a so-called civil insurance.
The self-employed with low incomes should pay reduced contributions. So here too the state social bureaucracy, flanked by the digital storage of medical data (“electronic health card”), would have more influence, although the tax office should actually be responsible for social compensation with the help of tax collection.
Officials should receive eligible tariffs: the differentiation starts again.
The emergency care should be accessible to all. In fact, this is not a problem, on the contrary, the emergency shots are overflowing, because many people with trivial disorders such as colds, these sites visit at any time of day and a lot of effort must be made to filter out really urgent cases out. So far, as with the English citizen insurance with their very long waiting times on eg operations, we are not yet.
And a broadening of the income base, in which better earners also have to pay into the statutory insurance, would neither lead to an improvement in benefits nor to a reduction in contribution rates or waiting times. Most experts predict the opposite. The high-earning middle class, which would then have to pay into the statutory insurance, would certainly also make use of services such as rehabilitation services and metal prostheses (artificial joints and so-called stents, with which we in Germany are already world champions in terms of the amount per inhabitant) . The psychotherapy sector, which is already overworked, would explode. And the insurance could not prevent someone who can pay for it from taking a single room or buying other medical and medical services that are not covered by the insurance.
Social democracy, however, wants to give the impression of wanting to reduce social differences, and state insurance would be a viable option. Officials and better earners but they do not want to bounce. In the end, however, what would be given would be taken away from another. And, as with the Schröder-Fischer social laws and the agenda, this would be the layer with the least influence, the lower class.
Not a word about the fact that the corporations are used to pay taxes and that the tax loopholes have to be closed. So the offensive for the left symbolic project, the citizens' insurance (the name is supposed to suggest the equality of all citizens) is just another diversionary maneuver: the state social bureaucracy would expand its access to other parts of the population without the employees and workers who receive their wages, would be even a bit better. The SPD will not become a ruling party, but at most, because it is so good, it will become an appendage of the Merkel government.
The subject of “citizens' insurance” has haunted the heads of the Social Democrats for decades. Sounds good at first and you can use it to collect points in the media.
But what should that really bring? I think that this theme corresponds to the typical envy of some peoples and their followers.
Anyone who has money will always be able to afford “better” medical treatment. Whether citizens insurance or as before.
And with officials? The criticism of the aid is, in my opinion, full of ignorance. The subsidy - whether at the federal or state level - does not reimburse many benefits and has long been adapted to the statutory health insurance benefits for many years. That leaves the percentage of private health insurance, which has to be quite different depending on the federal government, state and status. It also has to be paid dearly; for each family member separately. With the GKV, all family members (children, wife, if not working) are automatically insured with an income-related contribution free of charge. Relatives with low incomes only pay a small health insurance contribution.
In the case of a civil insurance for civil servants, first of all the income of the civil servants would have to be increased by the percentage of employees so that there would be no loss of salary. The AN-GKV shares are then transferred to the GKV by the AG. In return, the contributions to the private KV, which the civil servant has paid for his own net, have been dropped.
The AG then has to pay the state in addition to the GKV.
Projections show that this is a bad business for the state. It is much more cost-effective for the state to pay contributions in the form of subsidy only in the event of illness.
It would also take decades for civil servants to switch offices.
No, that can not be a solution.
The really affected people would be the doctors. As a private patient, the doctor usually receives at least the 2,5fachen (optional with justification even the 3,5fachen) rate of GOÄ for each individual treatment measure.
Once at the orthopedic surgeon. “Backs” cost around € 400. Since the patient is re-ordered, another € 400 is added. All together at least € 800.
By contrast, the doctor only receives a fraction of the GKV from a GKV insured person, even in the quarter.
Without private patients I see black for the future of many medical practices in today's often very expensive technical equipment.
The lower class can not take anything away from the political class to benefit other parts of the population. There is nothing left to cut. The upper class remains out of the way, pays little or no taxes and amuses itself at the insurance theater. So all that remains is to take something away from the well-to-do middle class in order to lend it to the lower middle class. That will hardly be enforced and is certainly not the goal of a reorganization. There has never been a distribution from top to bottom. The most important goal is a different one: until now, everyone who needs it receives dialysis, everyone gets a metal prosthesis or an important drug at the doctor's discretion. Here is a government, no matter which, use with a rationing: age limits for organ transplants, for metal prostheses, waiting for non-immediate life-saving operations. The English civil insurance has known this procedure for a long time. The middle class will take out supplementary insurance, so the disadvantage remains only with the lower class. And the importance of the political class deciding everything is greatly enhanced.
The key question is, which part of the population is really so bad that the state has to help (redistribute it?).
Since you have to look carefully.
At first, families with children are not. They are already being alimented considerably. Just now the KiGeld is raised again.
Take only one family (eg man / woman) with 2 children and one sole earner. And then try the tax table.
The burden is really limited. In addition, child benefit for 2 children. For many years, families receive additional grants for the education of children such as BaFöG.
No, really poor people are widows, for example, who - especially the older generation - have seldom or never worked and so only have to live on their widow's pension.
Furthermore, there are people who are badly affected by Schröder's H4 laws. After 1 year ALG is over; and if the partner (that can be a “friend you live with”) earns too much, not a single cent is left!