DThe financing of long-term care insurance is taken into account a long-term care case anyway. A reform is changing into much more pressing now that the Federal Constitutional Courtroom has requested the legislature to stagger contributions to long-term care insurance according to the number of children. The First Senate has given politicians till the finish of July 2023 to do that. Federal Minister of Well being Karl Lauterbach (SPD) assured that the resolution from Karlsruhe revealed on Wednesday could be carried out on time. “Lengthy-term care insurance should even be essentially extra solidly financed. We’ll deal with that too,” Lauterbach informed the editorial community Germany.
Politicians of the site visitors mild coalition in addition to the CDU praised the “reasonable” resolution” of the Karlsruhe court docket that the number of children in the contribution system of the long-term care insurance ought to be taken into consideration in the future – it will have been in the politicians’ palms to result in this “reasonable” resolution. In the present long-term care insurance system, childless folks have been paying a surcharge since 2005 – after the Federal Constitutional Courtroom had criticized the undifferentiated contributions for childless folks and oldsters in 2001 in the so-called long-term care insurance ruling as unconstitutional. The court docket is now persevering with this case legislation to the impact {that a} differentiation should even be made according to the number of children. On this respect, the judges agreed with the dad and mom from Freiburg who had filed a constitutional grievance. The Freiburg Social Courtroom had additionally turned to Karlsruhe as a result of it thought of the present authorized scenario to be unconstitutional.
Constructive response from associations
The Federal Constitutional Courtroom doesn’t make any specs for the particular design of the new regulation. The legislature has a “nice scope for evaluation, analysis and design”. The First Senate makes it clear that politicians should not compelled to enhance the contributions of childless folks after which additionally of dad and mom with fewer children. The reduction for households with many children can, for instance, even be financed (proportionally) by means of tax-financed federal grants or “different contributory and benefit-related devices”.
Household associations expressed their satisfaction with the resolution on long-term care insurance. “However sadly it solely impacts the economically most insignificant of the three branches of social insurance,” mentioned Ulrich Hoffmann, President of the Household Affiliation of Catholics. Politicians are spared the introduction of youngster allowances in statutory pension and well being insurance, which was significantly vital to the complaining dad and mom. The court docket dominated that there was no constitutional objection to the truth that oldsters and childless folks paid the similar contribution to well being and pension insurance. The fee of elevating children is sufficiently compensated for in the pension and well being insurance system. In the pension insurance, that is accomplished primarily by means of the recognition of child-rearing durations, in the statutory well being insurance by means of the non-contributory household insurance.
“The Federal Constitutional Courtroom made a smart resolution not to require any additional consideration of children in well being and pension insurance,” praised Anja Piel, member of the board of the German Commerce Union Confederation. Irrespective of this, “a good sharing of the burden throughout society as a complete is critical, which isn’t restricted to particular person methods or teams.” The deputy chairman of the FDP parliamentary group, Lukas Köhler, additionally expressed his reduction that the Federal Constitutional Courtroom accepted the contribution construction in the pension and well being insurance system.
Local weather subject
In the Nineties in specific, the court docket had made multi-billion greenback choices in tax and social safety legislation in favor of households. In the judgment on long-term care insurance from 2001, the legislature gave up the process of “inspecting the which means of the judgment for different branches of social insurance as nicely”. Extra just lately, the Karlsruhe local weather decision from 2021 had elevated hopes amongst the complaining dad and mom and the household associations supporting them that the court docket would demand a discount in contributions for fogeys in the pension and well being insurance system.
Learn F+ now for 30 days totally free and get entry to all articles on FAZ.NET.
READ F+ NOW
The local weather decision states that below sure circumstances the Primary Regulation obliges folks to shield “alternatives for freedom past the generations”. Since then, there was a heated debate as to whether or not this obligation to “safe elementary rights-protected freedom over time” applies not solely to local weather safety, but additionally to different areas of life – particularly in the space of pension insurance. Right here, too, there’s a hazard that the freedom of future generations could be excessively restricted as a result of prices are being shifted into the future, argue those that need to switch the local weather safety argument to the social safety methods. Nonetheless, the First Senate doesn’t appear prepared to go that route. In the resolution on long-term care insurance, the First Senate didn’t point out its local weather decision in any respect.
