Public Health proposal


Universal and free of charge Public Health insurance for people under 25.

I think this proposal fits well within a new deal for Solidarity

New Deal for Solidarity

Solidarity Programme
We believe that the European Union must revisit its fundamental values replacing the principle of free competition with the principle of solidarity. To act on this principle, we are proposing a pan-European Solidarity Program that will guarantee access to basic goods and Services for every European resident:
(i) water,
(ii) food,
(iii) housing,
(iv) energy, and
(v) health care.
The program will fund a large anti-poverty initiative to end food insecurity in Europe.
And it will also divert greater funds for the construction of new social housing, which will offer families security of tenure and protection from rough sleeping.

A Europe of Solidarity needs to protect children first and foremost.
European Spring will introduce a new European Plan to Eradicate Child Poverty that will increase investments in public care to protect vulnerable children and improve their access to health care and education.


What type of health care are you referring to? For any meaningful proposal in this area, I think it would be necessary to discuss the type of health system we ambition for. Do we actually want a health system that is taking over more and more of people’s autonomy while absorbing huge amounts of public money (actually ever increasing percentages of the yearly budget) to feed a health industry that serves primarily its own interests?


Very hard to see how autonomy is lost by better health. Rather people gain autonomy when they are well.

The overall proposal from je_M is a very good start but to my mind it is a cornerstone of any progressive party that health care is entirely free at the point it is given. In other words, it is funded by government outlays while private health care also can exist alongside for those who can afford to use it and choose to do so.


In my opinion, private providers will always try to obtain and increase profit, either by increasing fee for service or by “nudging” the system in the direction of overtreatment. Better health is certainly a goal that we should keep in mind. I just doubt that this can be guaranteed by the consumption of more health services that more often than not turn the patient into a passive consumer of treatment. This particularly true in the last year before death where frequently most of the expenses occur. That is probably one of the reasons for patients looking for alternative treatments. If we want better health, the living conditions that include housing, nutrition, and work need to be addressed to permit people to live a fulfilled live and face death as a natural part of it. I don’t know if this is progressive or not but I hope that it’s humane.


I do not like private health care. Its what opens the door to injustice and class treatment in the health care system. They are not necessary. The less money plays a role in medicine, the better.


Hans, I completely agree with you when you say “private providers will always try to obtain and increase profit, either by increasing fee for service or by “nudging” the system in the direction of overtreatment.” I also think you are absolutely correct when you argued: " If we want better health, the living conditions that include housing, nutrition, and work need to be addressed to permit people to live a fulfilled live and face death as a natural part of it. I don’t know if this is progressive or not but I hope that it’s humane."

You have ignored my point about having a public health system being free at the point of use. I am trying to build a dialogue here.


I fully agree, Sebastian. Of course there are people who want to buy good money for health care and I don’t believe we should prohibit them from doing it. Better to have a well funded public system but some people have the mistaken belief that if they pay for something privately it will automatically be better. They need to be educated of course.


Hello again.
I guess we can agree on a public health system free of charge at the point of use. More difficult to decide is how such a health system should look like.

I would strongly advise against allowing private health care to compete with a public system, a least at the level of hospitals. It will not only concur for funds by advertising supposedly better care but also for professionals by cherry-picking the best or most well-known doctors which will compromise public care and education of younger colleagues.


does sb. have numbers?
I have one but I’m a discalculic ;D
a “freiwilligenversicherung” which is the lowest possibility of insurance in germany costs 170,- per month. when you have children it’s the same, they run on your name then.

is an basic health care with basic equipment in everyhospital assurable if 170,- would be paid for everybody equally? (birthfluctuation somehow included into the base formula…)
greeting respectfully!


I am not for the “gratis total” completely free programs because they induce misuse.

This is why the proposal is limited to young people only and at this stage it will correspond to the health national insurance systems and the costs will not (does not need to) be exaggerated, because most of the children are already cover by their parents insurance or the students insurances.

The point is more the description “universal and free”, health is a right, a universal and free right

once people gets over the 25 and in the labor life they can contribute to the health system and once we get a first punt we can push for another punt


The most efficient (and cheapest on the long term) health system is one that makes sure, people are not getting sick in the first place, rather than only focus on the treatment (still important of course).

One of the most important factors for longevity (even though we are getting older, we spend more time with “sick” years) is nutrition (and exercise). There are many different approaches and problems around this, trying to sum up a few:

(i) Nutrition recommendations. The current recommendation (often still the food pyramid) is heavily influenced by big cooperations, every recommendation that still include animal products is not acknowledging science. Big efforts of physicians in the US at least managed to change it to the “nutrition plate” (you can find more info at: www . choosemyplate . gov) which does not directly mention meat anymore, however the dairy industry still managed to let dairy be included. However, its not about to forbid eating animal products, but encouraging it is as stated above is a purposefully wrong-leading.

(ii) Nutrition Education. Based on the previous paragraph, we need a broad, free accessible, low barrier education on nutrition. These can be measures video-series free accesible on a homepage, but also bringing (science based!) nutrition education into schools. Junk Food is advertised heavily to children and families, super heroes that are connected to them, have you ever seen big corporate money in healthy food? Unfortunately not, because there is not much money you can get out of it.

(iii) Advocating for more nutrition education within the curriculum of medical students. A recent article by the washington post showed once more (and I can unfortunately approve as a medical student) that physician are right now not the best persons to talk to when its abouut nutrition.

Beside nutrition, also Sexual & Reproductive Health is an effictive measure:

(i) Supporting countries in providing free HPV vaccination for female (& male!) youth in Europe
(ii) Supporting comprehensive Sexual Education programs

The main message I want to stress out once more. Even though preventive medicine is expensive in the first place, it will always save huge amounts of money on a long term. So beside specific measures we could also try to have a baseline that urges countries to spend a minimum amount of their GDP to use for public health/preventive medicine (even though I personally prefer proposal for different measures, rather than setting a certain amount from their GDP)


Info for debate about his subject…

According to information from Eurostat
In 2018 the GDP of Europe is about € 15.8 trillion
We spent little bit more then € 1.6 trillion to healthcare (10.5% GDP)
Number of people in Europe is 513 million
GDP is about € 30.800 per person per year.
We spent on average about € 3,200 per person per year to healthcare.
In the 50’s we spent only about 4% of GDP to healthcare.

In the Neterlands about 10% of the healthcare cost are profit (main part for pharmacy industry)
We also pay about 10% to much because of to much administrative complexity and wages for some doctors and managers who make more then 8 times the minimumwage (the salary of our Minister president) per year
We spent almost nothing to prevention, and healty food education etc.
This mean we can save about 20% of healtcare cost by changing regulations and the way we work / finance the healthcare system.
Only a few % (mostly last year people live) consume about 25% of healthcare cost.
Maybe we have to make a limit how much we spent to some one per age group per year and some life quality indicators. I know this is a difficult subject.
In time prevention and good food is also what we need to prevent healtcare cost become unafordable.
Sorry I don’t know detail numbers of other EU countries how healthcare cost are build up.

Today several countries work like in The Netherland with a system we give healthcare workers and organizations money per activity they do. This is asking for overtreathment. I think we need mostly a basic healthcare system per neigborhood with 10,000 citizens and hospitals at city level. And give each organization a basic budget and compare the qualitiy of the services and results they have.

Maybe we can use the traditional Chinese way of healthcare insurance, paying healthcare insurance to the the general practitioner / house doctor (or the healthcare centrum in the neigborhoods) when you are healty and stop paying healthcare insurance when you are sick. This will make the system focus on prevention and not like to day focus on doing … To prevent some people want to be sick so they dont have to pay healthcare insurance we must change this system a little bit that people have no incentive to be sick.

Other way to keep healthcare cost low is using the system of Singapore, people have to save a large part of their income for pension and healthcare cost. In Singapore the healthcare cost are officialy about 4% GPD. and when they need a doctor etc. they have to pay a large part by them self. Sorry I have not enough info to be sure we compare the same thing in Europe and Singapore. This system is to bad for people with no good health. As a left wing party I don’t think we must do this.


Look at other countries - Japan for small hospitals.


so there are european numbers.
we know many of them will fluctuate when we change the wages(what is discussed where?) and so the jobmarkets and so the quality of living, the pharmaindustry the administration - but it is a base number let’s say 4.000,- pP/y… why is that not possible that it is paid from the “bigBOX” before reparting?
the people would keep sth. like chipcards(like that insurence cards you get) for registration for statistics, to be able to handle the administration and logistics and adapt to the changing needs of people and time, fluctuation has to be fast evaluated… I am sure there are already plenty of tools in the insurences as marketing companies.
so we keep our insurence cards and we know that 1,6trillon has to be saved from the european financial tax, or sth like that…
Let it be so simple please! :sunny:


yes, keep it simple, let’s make a simple, direct and applicable (doable) proposal that is in line with our objectives and is an effective first step in the direction we want to push Europe
the more ambitious and complicated, the more difficult will be to pass the message
therefore my proposal, short and simple:
universal and free of charge Public Healthcare insurance for people under 25


Let’s just say health care is a human right and provided from cradle to grave.


With 1 far the most simple taxrule we can make European transaction tax / stop using VAT and labor tax we can pay the cost of:

  • Healthcare (10% GDP)
  • Education and scholarship (5% GDP)
  • Familie/childsupport, social security and basic pension for older people (8% GDP)

And we no longer need the use of VAT and labortax too :grinning:…


I come from Finland that offers universal healthcare for its residents and the financing is primarily based on taxes. The healthcare system is also run by public sector (Between 3-4% of in-patient care is provided by the private healthcare system). Although there is ongoing debate about the cost-efficiency of the Finnish model, I would like to see a public sector run universal healthcare for all European residents. Just because we should see healthcare as a basic need, not as a sector for commerce or profit. I think addressing this is vital.

Even in Finland we have seen a shift in terminology: Patients are been called clients the past 15 years. Plus Finland is in a midst of a huge reform that is pushing towards privatization of the entire healthcare system.


Dear Finland, please learn from the US and The Netherlands privatisation of the healthcare system makes the healthcare system sick and to expensive…


Vienna DSC1 suggests thinking about the question whether access to internet should be considered a fundamental right in the 21st century as well?