The unexpectedly clear yes to the 13th AHV pension has barely been digested. And the right-wing civil and business associations must prepare for the next ‘social hammer’. In three months, two health care policy proposals will be voted on: the SP’s premium waiver initiative and the Center’s cost brake initiative.
They tackle the problem of unbridled cost growth in healthcare, for which politicians seem unable to find a solution. As a direct result of this, health insurance premiums are also increasing. The capitalization system increases the burden on people who were previously not entitled to state rebates.
Medium-sized families and retirees are particularly hard hit. It is not surprising that the initiatives received great support in an initial Tamedia survey. 64 percent definitely or rather want to say yes to the SP initiative and 21 percent want to say no. The yes share for the cost brake is even higher at 72 percent (compared to 11 percent no).
In this case, a turnaround will be difficult before the June 9 vote. However, when it comes to premium waivers, the ‘nonsense’ is not included. According to Tamedia, opinion formation has “not yet progressed that far”. This corresponds to the typical process for popular initiatives. However, when it came to the 13th AHV pension, there was a clear yes trend early on.
Nevertheless, the opportunities for this initiative are intact, as health insurance premiums are the biggest problem for the Swiss population. That is why the Federal Council has postponed the referendum, which was actually scheduled for last weekend, until June. He was probably hoping that last fall’s “bounty shock” would have been digested by then.
With this he could have just as well speculated as with the timing of the 13th AHV retirement, the explosive power of which he underestimated, just like the entire right-wing camp. Parliament could also have ‘gambled away’ because the vote only takes place because, in the opinion of the initiators, it has decided on insufficient counter-proposals.
Internally, the SP issue is also called the “10% initiative”. Because it requires people in Switzerland to spend a maximum of ten percent of their disposable income on health insurance premiums. In fact, this means a significant increase in premium reductions that the cantons would have to pay for.
The Council of States therefore initially did not want a counter-proposal. Only when he realized that the initiative had a chance of success did he change course. It attracts “great interest among the people,” warned Josef Dittli, member of the Uri FDP Council of States. Ultimately, he prevailed by limiting the additional burden on the cantons to approximately 350 million francs.
The National Council had decided on a counter-proposal that went much further. He wanted to increase premium reductions by two billion francs, of which 800 million would be borne by the cantons. That would be about half of the initiative costs of 3.5 to 5 billion euros for the federal government and cantons that the Federal Council estimates in its message.
Nevertheless, the SP would probably have withdrawn its premium waiver initiative if the National Council had won. Parliament’s “stinginess” could take its revenge, because in this case the foundry’s argument does not work, and younger people, including families and those at the beginning of their professional career, also benefit.
The popular initiative has come a long way. It was decided in principle in 2017 by the then CVP. It demands that the Federal Council, parliament and the cantons intervene if healthcare costs rise too much compared to wage developments. Unlike the SP initiative, it does not only combat the symptoms.
“The current system is sick and full of false incentives,” the Center writes. Party chairman Gerhard Pfister spoke in the National Council of a “paradise for money collectors”. It’s an accurate diagnosis, and the powerful players in the healthcare system, such as the medical profession, health insurers, and the pharmaceutical industry, are doing everything they can to ensure that doesn’t change.
Under their pressure, Parliament watered down the Federal Council’s counterproposal. It provided not only cost and quality targets, but also measures if these were not met. This point was already rejected during the first round of discussions in the National Council. The Center Party found that the counter-proposal lacked “binding”.
She therefore stuck to her initiative, hoping that pressure from the electorate would make a difference. But centrist representatives admit ‘off the record’ that they expect little, even if there is a clear ‘yes’. The influence of the lobbies on the other parties, including the left, is too great. The SP has decided on the no slogan for the cost reduction initiative.
An unchangeable system, a lot of suffering because of the bonuses and ‘weak’ counter-proposals: the recipe for a double yes on June 9 would be there. It will not be easy for the opponents to develop an effective campaign, also because they are part of the problem. In the case of the SP initiative, this could again cost them dearly.
source: watson
I’m Maxine Reitz, a journalist and news writer at 24 Instant News. I specialize in health-related topics and have written hundreds of articles on the subject. My work has been featured in leading publications such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and Healthline. As an experienced professional in the industry, I have consistently demonstrated an ability to develop compelling stories that engage readers.
