Against the advice of the party council: the SP rejects the center’s austerity initiative

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

The SP dispute over the center initiative has been settled. The delegates recommend not to vote for the so-called “cost brake initiative”. The party council around SP co-leader Mattea Meyer (36) had spoken out in favor of a yes slogan, a group around SP state councilors Barbara Gysi (59, SG) and Sarah Wyss (35, BS) and neo-politician state councilor Islam Alijaj ( 37, ZH) wanted to refuse this and ultimately separated himself clearly.

The Centre’s cost-cutting initiative calls for action if healthcare costs rise too much compared to wages. This could potentially mean removing benefits from the basic insurance catalogue, granting franchises or increasing pressure on staff, Gysi told delegates at Le Grand-Saconnex GE.

Own initiative

SP co-chair Mattea Meyer, on the other hand, argued that the cost brake was not wrong in principle. “Health care is big business for a few,” says Meyer. It is a sham competition between health insurers that is financed by premium payers; the cost brake initiative could help combat this.

However, delegates agreed that their own health insurance reduction initiative, the Premium Relief Initiative, was better suited to combat health care cost problems.

The premium reduction initiative, which will also be voted on on June 9, calls for more premium reductions. Insured persons should spend a maximum of ten percent on compulsory health insurance.

Center rejects SP initiative

The center party, for its part, rejects the SP initiative. SP Councilor Jon Pult (39) tried to convince the center of this solution. Pult advised the mid-level to adopt not only their own cost-savings initiative, but also the SP’s premium assistance initiative. Combining the two referenda could make significant progress, both in terms of costs and financial burden.

However, Landraad Lorenz Hess (62) of the Berne Center spoke out against the SP initiative and in favor of the indirect counter-proposal drawn up by the federal councils. The cantons will therefore have to make a minimal contribution to the premium reduction in the future.

The SP initiative is too expensive, according to Hess. A moderate adjustment to the premium reduction is justified, but the costs also need to be discussed. Another advantage of the counter-proposal is that no powers are transferred from the cantons to the federal government. (SDA/brother)

Source:Blick