Dear Sir or Madam,
At a time when the current political issue is the abolition of supplementary health insurance and the introduction of a compulsory contribution to health insurance with a solidarity scale according to income, we should consider whether the level of benefits is sufficient to determine the level of the compulsory contribution. The fact is that users of health services have very different lifestyles and habits and thus very different levels of risk of disease. A one-size-fits-all contribution, or a solidarity scale that takes into account only income, is discriminatory, since it treats drinkers and teetotallers, smokers and non-smokers, overweight and underweight people, walkers and those who enjoy risky adrenaline sports, etc., in the same way. The solidarity scale should therefore also introduce a kind of lifestyle risk index, determined by each person's personal or treating doctor, which would affect the amount of the individual's health insurance contribution. Thus, anyone whose risky lifestyle exposes them to diseases caused by alcohol, smoking, obesity, etc., would have to pay a correspondingly higher contribution. This is because such illnesses cost the Health Insurance Fund hundreds of millions a year, and at present all such costs are covered in solidarity by the same contribution, which means discriminatory treatment for all those with a risk-free lifestyle. If all those whose lifestyles put them at high risk of morbidity were charged an appropriately high contribution, this could probably induce many people to change their lifestyles, which would in turn bring non-negligible savings to the NHIF coffers and reduce the burden on the health service.
Best regards,