Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Complaints corner  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 24.11.2011, 14:03
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CH
Posts: 10,970
Groaned at 2,032 Times in 1,120 Posts
Thanked 5,139 Times in 3,246 Posts
omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

I would rather see that people pay health insurance according to what they earn.
Quote:
View Post
Very true. In fact many people have a complete lack of understanding how much tax goes towards paying for health care. In Australia, you pay for health care via:
- tax
- medicare levy
- medicare levy surcharge (high income earners only)
- and many people also have private health care (approx 50% of Australians)

People fail to add 3-4 together out of those to come up with the cost they pay for health care. And every year you get decreasing services not increasing i.e. same beds for an increasing population, deteriorating medical facilities, and because its considered 'free' - full emergency rooms in every major hospital etc etc. People also fail to understand that decreasing services as those listed above, are a cost to the payer (because you are paying more and getting less).
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank omtatsat for this useful post:
The following 2 users groan at omtatsat for this post:
  #42  
Old 24.11.2011, 14:15
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,516
Groaned at 2,578 Times in 1,840 Posts
Thanked 39,652 Times in 18,690 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
I also assume that this single wage is just temporary till your child reaches school going age and your partner can return to work.
Why would you assume that?

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 24.11.2011, 14:19
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,516
Groaned at 2,578 Times in 1,840 Posts
Thanked 39,652 Times in 18,690 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
I would rather see that people pay health insurance according to what they earn.
I'd rather see that people pay health insurance according to what they USE!

Personally, I preferred the good old days of non-mandatory health insurance. Health insurance wasn't mandatory, and it was far cheaper if you did get it.

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 24.11.2011, 14:20
dodgyken's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Democratic Republic Kenistan
Posts: 10,653
Groaned at 279 Times in 230 Posts
Thanked 19,403 Times in 7,402 Posts
dodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
I would rather see that people pay health insurance according to what they earn.
What you don't see is that is exactly what happens. The "rich", whoever they may be, subsidise the poor by opting for "increased cover" package from their health care supplier.

Or at like to call it "Business Class". What you get for the upgraded premium is not in proportion to the increase in cost. The same goes for the super duper packages where you don't have to be near the sick plebs - this is more like "First Class".

When it comes to TAX you have to be very careful what you wish for. The rich already contribute significently to the "system" - the increase in tax rate between 200,000chf and 400,000chf is proof of that (in Kanton Zurich) - and above those amount tax is significent.

If you a one (80%) income family - you will be "poor" by modern Swiss standards. You won't be "impoverished" and you won't go hungry - but you won't be able to live a life of luxury. But you signed up to that when you chose to be a nurse - and I applaud you for making that decision.

Society needs people who give both socially (nursing, teachers, police etc) and those who give financially.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank dodgyken for this useful post:
  #45  
Old 24.11.2011, 14:51
KeinFranzösisch's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,198
Groaned at 63 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 2,549 Times in 1,115 Posts
KeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
No thats basically not true. The younger people are basically keeping the health sytem going and have to deep deepest into their pockets.
??????????

Quote:
View Post
I'd rather see that people pay health insurance according to what they USE!

Personally, I preferred the good old days of non-mandatory health insurance. Health insurance wasn't mandatory, and it was far cheaper if you did get it.

Tom
I'd like to see the costs of health CARE go back to where they were so that people didn't have to need health insurance to pay for every little sniffle, cough or hangnail.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank KeinFranzösisch for this useful post:
  #46  
Old 24.11.2011, 14:51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fribourg
Posts: 428
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 212 Times in 102 Posts
Millso has made some interesting contributions
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
Why would you assume that?

Tom
Ok, assumptions are bad.

I just feel (or perhaps more accurately hope) that anyone wanting to have a child would realise the long term financial consequences of that action and would plan accordingly. If omtatstat feels so strongly about a reduction in a health care subsidy that he would wish to complain about its negative effects on his family (implied, not stated) then that implies that money is tight for his household.

With his sole income providing for the family it once more implies that his partner is looking after the child, is unemployed or unable to work. If unemployed then I imagine unemployment benefit would be applicable or if sick and unable to work then once more some sort of income would be provided which leaves that his partner is looking after their child.

I would hope that people would try to help themselves before asking others for help through a subsidy designed for the poorer elements of society which is why I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that his partner would wish to return to work in some shape or form when able to. If this subsidy is not designed for the poorer elements of society then I would further understand the decision by the people of Zurich to cut it.

I however do not know his situation and there may be things that I have not considered (in fact I know there must be) but that's the conclusion I have come to. He is free to tell me that I am wrong of course in which case I'd have to consider other possible scenarios. I also know very little about the swiss tax and welfare systems, as can be seen from my not knowing if I pay the right level of tax, which could cause me to arrive at incorrect conclusions.

I guess it was a flippant remark without much though put into it as I was mainly concerned with his initial argument and I have wandered down an unintended path but I do feel that people should only be given help if they are unable to help themselves. Whether that applies in this case is neither here nor there.

I hope this explains from where my assumption is based.

Last edited by Millso; 24.11.2011 at 14:55. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 24.11.2011, 15:17
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,516
Groaned at 2,578 Times in 1,840 Posts
Thanked 39,652 Times in 18,690 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
Ok, assumptions are bad.
You are assuming that if no children are at home (or are of school age), then both parents work.

BAD assumption (at least around here), most families I know are single income, regardless of kids.

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 24.11.2011, 15:21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fribourg
Posts: 428
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 212 Times in 102 Posts
Millso has made some interesting contributions
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

ok fair enough but if those single incomes are struggling and they choose to stay on single income then I don't feel they deserve to be helped by other taxpayers.
It's a question of choice for me, choose to help yourself or choose to struggle financially (in this case) and maybe benefit in other ways from your choice but don't expect others to pick up the tab.

Anyway, that's a discussion for another day
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Millso for this useful post:
  #49  
Old 24.11.2011, 16:12
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CH
Posts: 10,970
Groaned at 2,032 Times in 1,120 Posts
Thanked 5,139 Times in 3,246 Posts
omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Just to clarify.

My wife has been working many years on 50%. Even with her wage we qualified for health insurance reductions. Now we have exceeded the limit and only my child gets the reduction.

Under 47600CHF per year one is eligible for a reduction.



Quote:
View Post
Ok, assumptions are bad.

I just feel (or perhaps more accurately hope) that anyone wanting to have a child would realise the long term financial consequences of that action and would plan accordingly. If omtatstat feels so strongly about a reduction in a health care subsidy that he would wish to complain about its negative effects on his family (implied, not stated) then that implies that money is tight for his household.

With his sole income providing for the family it once more implies that his partner is looking after the child, is unemployed or unable to work. If unemployed then I imagine unemployment benefit would be applicable or if sick and unable to work then once more some sort of income would be provided which leaves that his partner is looking after their child.

I would hope that people would try to help themselves before asking others for help through a subsidy designed for the poorer elements of society which is why I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that his partner would wish to return to work in some shape or form when able to. If this subsidy is not designed for the poorer elements of society then I would further understand the decision by the people of Zurich to cut it.

I however do not know his situation and there may be things that I have not considered (in fact I know there must be) but that's the conclusion I have come to. He is free to tell me that I am wrong of course in which case I'd have to consider other possible scenarios. I also know very little about the swiss tax and welfare systems, as can be seen from my not knowing if I pay the right level of tax, which could cause me to arrive at incorrect conclusions.

I guess it was a flippant remark without much though put into it as I was mainly concerned with his initial argument and I have wandered down an unintended path but I do feel that people should only be given help if they are unable to help themselves. Whether that applies in this case is neither here nor there.

I hope this explains from where my assumption is based.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank omtatsat for this useful post:
  #50  
Old 24.11.2011, 16:32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fribourg
Posts: 428
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 212 Times in 102 Posts
Millso has made some interesting contributions
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Thanks for the response even if the question(s) you responded to wasn't exactly the original topic of conversation (or anyone's business for that matter) but it has let me learn a bit about the swiss system
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 24.11.2011, 21:39
OSueco's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Aargau
Posts: 1,466
Groaned at 317 Times in 193 Posts
Thanked 1,265 Times in 624 Posts
OSueco has a reputation beyond reputeOSueco has a reputation beyond reputeOSueco has a reputation beyond reputeOSueco has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
I'd rather see that people pay health insurance according to what they USE!
hmm...that wouldn't quite work...would it...

I mean, how can you tell what you will use? Except if you have a chronic disease and want to punish them more...

But I guess what you are advocating is that the franchise cost should be even higher and monthly fix cost lower?

What about no health insurance and that you pay all of what you use?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 24.11.2011, 22:01
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Fine in principle - until you have a terrible accident or a very nasty illness. Then most people just can't afford the cost, and government/society has to pick the tab in a civilised society. Even if you keep active, watch your diet, don't smoke or drink, etc, etc- none of us are immune to disaster. I know, I had a car accident (I was not the driver btw) when I was 19, was in and out of hospital for 2 years, took more to learn to walk again- and 41 years later it is still causing me much trouble and am in line for a full knee replacement.
Who would have picked the tab had I not been insured?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #53  
Old 24.11.2011, 22:14
Nil's Avatar
Nil Nil is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Basel
Posts: 10,356
Groaned at 428 Times in 333 Posts
Thanked 16,045 Times in 6,322 Posts
Nil has a reputation beyond reputeNil has a reputation beyond reputeNil has a reputation beyond reputeNil has a reputation beyond reputeNil has a reputation beyond reputeNil has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

The real problem is the health insurance lobby. In Spain, they have a very good public health care and the price for private insurance is much cheaper than in CH.

And my recents experiences of the health care here showed me it was as good as the one in CH.

In CH, we used to pay 600 chf for a family of 4 and in Spain we are paying 160 Euros per month including dental insurance.

I have a chronic disease which bring my monthly payment a bit higher since I have the lower franchise possible. I wouldn't expect other people to pay for it.

I believe something should be done with those rip off insurance companies who ask exorbitant amount of money for healt care which isn't outstanding for the money spend.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 24.11.2011, 22:16
SamWeiseVielleicht's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bern
Posts: 725
Groaned at 11 Times in 10 Posts
Thanked 893 Times in 397 Posts
SamWeiseVielleicht has a reputation beyond reputeSamWeiseVielleicht has a reputation beyond reputeSamWeiseVielleicht has a reputation beyond reputeSamWeiseVielleicht has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
What you don't see is that is exactly what happens. The "rich", whoever they may be, subsidise the poor by opting for "increased cover" package from their health care supplier.
Nope, that is not correct I am afraid. There is no cross-financing between the mandatory cover according to the "swiss healthcare law" (KVG) and the additional cover according to the "swiss law on insurance contracts" VVG.

Insurances companies are not allowed to make profits under the KVG, they can only cover the administrative costs.

People with additional cover basically pay for the bonuses and nice cars of the managers of the insurance companies.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 25.11.2011, 00:42
Lex's Avatar
Lex Lex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zug
Posts: 312
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 257 Times in 138 Posts
Lex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
The real problem is the health insurance lobby. In Spain, they have a very good public health care and the price for private insurance is much cheaper than in CH.
I would much rather see a comparison of a country in surplus, or marginal deficit, rather than one in growing debt with 10% to GDP in annual deficits. It should be noted that Spains system is being paid for by future generations in the form of debt, at least partially. Completely unsustainable.

Your right the insurance companies are also a problem, but the government is the biggest problem of all. Seems as though the prices in Switzerland rose when the government brought in compulsory health insurance, thats exactly what happens when government intervenes.

Good luck with the recovery

Last edited by Lex; 25.11.2011 at 02:01.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Lex for this useful post:
  #56  
Old 25.11.2011, 01:02
Lex's Avatar
Lex Lex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zug
Posts: 312
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 257 Times in 138 Posts
Lex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
Insurances companies are not allowed to make profits under the KVG, they can only cover the administrative costs.
Hang on, if there is no profit involved than there cant be an incentive to keep costs down. Putting my business 101 hat on, that means that all I need to do all day in my office if I work for these companies is make sure that I dont perform worse than the worst insurance company. i.e. just aim for second last. So this no profit for KVG is true?

Last edited by Lex; 25.11.2011 at 01:02. Reason: learn something every day
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 25.11.2011, 08:40
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,516
Groaned at 2,578 Times in 1,840 Posts
Thanked 39,652 Times in 18,690 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
hmm...that wouldn't quite work...would it...
Why not, it works for car insurance.

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 25.11.2011, 09:00
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
5400*12+1 ( 13th Wage) = 70200CHF

Subtract all deductions ( AHV,Pensionkasse,rent, Health payments) and you are left with 2500CHF in month.
So you earn a gross salary of CHF 70K+ plus whatever your wife earns at her 50% job.

Quote:
View Post
Just to clarify.

My wife has been working many years on 50%. Even with her wage we qualified for health insurance reductions. Now we have exceeded the limit and only my child gets the reduction.

Under 47600CHF per year one is eligible for a reduction.
The cut-off for healthcare assistance/reduction per person is just under CHF 48K.

Maybe I'm being a bit dim, not having had my coffee yet but I don't get it. You sound better off than many families in much worse financial state.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 25.11.2011, 09:13
SamWeiseVielleicht's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bern
Posts: 725
Groaned at 11 Times in 10 Posts
Thanked 893 Times in 397 Posts
SamWeiseVielleicht has a reputation beyond reputeSamWeiseVielleicht has a reputation beyond reputeSamWeiseVielleicht has a reputation beyond reputeSamWeiseVielleicht has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reducing the Health care subsidy to individuals

Quote:
View Post
Hang on, if there is no profit involved than there cant be an incentive to keep costs down. Putting my business 101 hat on, that means that all I need to do all day in my office if I work for these companies is make sure that I dont perform worse than the worst insurance company. i.e. just aim for second last. So this no profit for KVG is true?

Yes it is true. However, as I said, the insurance companies make their profit from the additional/optional (VVG) contracts. Now while you do not need to have your VVG-contracts with the same insurance company as your KVG-Insurance, most people do.

So you will want to have low premiums, as this will result in more of the profitable clients (young healthy, males). Or you will want to have not just as profitable clients (middle aged males or females) and keep them for some time (this is what you get with middle-of-the-road premiums and a good customer service).
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would reducing the UK voting age help to engage young people? Deep Purple International affairs/politics 15 13.08.2011 09:37
health insurance subsidy for L permit? HRA Insurance 0 13.05.2011 22:03
How come I have to pay the insurance subsidy back??? Marz Family matters/health 2 05.08.2010 09:47
Students entitled to apply for Health Insurance Subsidy CitizenDuMonde Insurance 5 03.07.2010 21:09
Annual health Care Bill for someone in general good health OBone Insurance 12 01.05.2010 17:12


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0