The Greens want to reduce the pressure on premiums – and get money from the street to do so

Things cannot continue like this: it is a figure that is increasingly decreasing due to rising healthcare costs and premiums. “Our previous system was good, but it is slowly coming to an end,” Pierre-Alain Schnegg, Bern’s health director, said recently. According to the SRG’s latest election barometer, the population now considers the bonuses as the most important political challenge.

Now the Greens are throwing in an explosive proposal. In a parliamentary group motion tabled on Monday, they demand: Taxes on environmentally harmful products should be used to cover healthcare costs and thus reduce the burden on those who pay premiums. In concrete terms, the tax on mineral oils that motorists pay will be partially shifted. In addition, a new tax will be introduced on pesticides and toxic chemicals.

“Today’s funding has reached its limits,” said Green Party national councilor Felix Wettstein, explaining the proposal. Costs rose and premium reductions increasingly had to compensate for this. That is why a new, third source of financing is needed in addition to the insured and the state. This would apply even if the left-wing demand for the abolition of the premium were to prevail.

He argues that it only makes sense to start with those that cause environmental damage: “Polluted air, noise, toxic residues: a significant proportion of diseases can be traced back to harmful environmental influences.” In line with the polluter pays principle, environmental taxes should reduce the premium burden – significantly: they should replace five to ten percent of basic insurance premiums, which today amount to more than 36 billion francs per year.

Environmental taxes already exist today, but on a smaller scale. According to the Federal Office for the Environment, a total of 580 million francs will be returned to the population through health insurance premiums next year. It amounts to 64.20 francs per year per insured person, a small amount in relation to the premiums. Most of the money comes from the CO2 tax on domestic heating oil and natural gas.

Traffic has not yet been taken into account in environmental taxes – “even though it causes high health care costs,” criticizes Wettstein, who until recently worked as a lecturer in health promotion and prevention at the Northwestern Swiss University of Applied Sciences. According to a federal report, healthcare costs of R3,054 million were incurred in 2020 due to air pollution from traffic alone. Traffic caused, among other things, 23,800 hospital days due to air pollution and noise pollution.

The Greens therefore demand in the motion that part of the revenue from the tax on mineral oils and the car tax should be used to cover healthcare costs. Nowadays, most of this money is used for transport – something the Greens are critical of anyway. “We believe that too much money is being invested in roads,” Wettstein said.

Moreover, the Greens believe that there is also a need for new taxes on pesticides and toxic chemicals such as lead, bisphenols and mercury and the so-called PFAS, a group of industrially produced chemicals.

In total, the premium burden should be reduced by a maximum of ten percent, which would currently correspond to 3.6 billion francs. The Greens do not say where how much money should come from or how high taxes should be: the federal government must calculate that, says Wettstein. “With this motion we demand that the legal basis is created. The amount of taxes will then have to be arranged in the comments.”

To divert money from the road, the hurdles are high: earmarking taxes on mineral oil and cars is enshrined in the constitution, so a referendum would be necessary. There is certainly political resistance, so the chances of the Greens’ initiative are likely slim.

There is also a flaw in all proposals that focus on premiums: that they do not address the problem of health care costs. Wettstein emphasizes that the Greens also “support all approaches to reduce costs without compromising the quality of treatment,” such as coordinated care or electronic health records.

He also hopes that environmental taxes will have a cost-saving effect in the long term: thanks to the steering effect, environmental damage should decrease – which should have consequences for health. “That may sound naive,” he admits. “But the ozone hole, for example, has clearly shown that political decisions can have a positive impact on the environment.”

One thing is clear: there is no shortage of ideas in the election campaign to combat the increase in premiums. (aargauerzeitung.ch)