Reader F. Myschkin asked:
Do I get this right – your government is CENSORING YOUR COMMENT regarding health insurance tariffs ?!?!
My answer after the click.
Regarding censorship: As you can see, I can publish the petition and my opinion here on the blog. It is only that the petition is not going to be published on the official public petition website, since as I was told the text was considered as being too hard to understand for unbiased third parties.
That is I could in principle try to collect 80 000 or more votes on another website like this one here. However on randform this could be very costly for us that is we would probably need to close the randform site becuase of too much traffic, so I probably won’t try to push this petition much further. I may eventually transfer the petition though to another website.
The officials keep me informed about the petition process, that is I got meanwhile a copy of the report of the ministry of health which is informing amongst others about the fact that the german Supreme court approved the regulation (§ 240 Absatz 4 Satz 2 SGB V mit Beschluss vom 22.5. 2001) and that there exists a lower step tariff for people who can justify a “need” (german: “Bedürftigkeit”, in particular they explained this by saying that the income of your partner must not be too high).
The in the report mentioned lower step tariff for people in need has a Mindesteinnahmegrenze of 1312.50 Euro, which still gives a rather high step of 203. 44 Euro a month. On the information website of the health assurance TK this tariff is moreover declared as being only a kind of temporary tariff for “founders.”
What I sofar understood from the report is that the Supreme court had argued that the injustice of a step tariff is balanced against the fact that the health tariff for selfemployed is computed after deducing operation expenses. People who are not employed somewhere and who are not declared as self-employed can’t deduce operation expenses from their income and thus have to pay higher tariffs. Step tariffs are seen as a measure to restore this imbalance. So do I understand this correctly that operation expenses are seen by the supreme court as some kind of “income”, which is sort of unfairly not taken into account for computing the health insurance tariffs ?!
The Supreme court also seemed to argue that the risk of an entrepreneur (i.e. of a free lancer) should not be imposed on the community of employed health insurance members, moreover the step tariff appears also to be justified from the “viewpoint of fee justice and the feasibility of administration“.
In the report it is also mentioned that there exists a step tariff for employed health insurance payers. Sounds a bit to me as if the existence of one problematic regulation should justify another. It would probably also make sense to file a petition for the step tariffs for the health insurance of the employed. It is clear that step tariffs can be a problem in many regulations as can be seen not only at step tariffs for employed workers but also at the recent GEMA uproar (petition)(other randform post about GEMA).
Or in other words: it makes no sense to file a petition against making steps into curves (which is called in mathematics a discretization*) because it depends what and how you discretize!
*For the math interested reader: digitalization (i.e. making some things digital) can be seen as a special form of discretization.