I propose that the state legislation on supplementary health insurance be amended so that the supplementary insurance premium is equalised for all insured persons.
The current legislation allows insurers to charge an additional 5% of the basic premium to newly insured persons who take out supplementary health insurance for each year in which they have not taken out supplementary health insurance. This discriminates against those who did not have supplementary health insurance, as they have to pay for something that the insurance company did not give them - all the "extra" health services they paid for themselves out of their own pockets when they were without supplementary health insurance. Insurance companies do not, of course, refund these amounts retrospectively, although they cash in the extra 5% on the annual premium every year of the duration of the insurance of the newly insured person who has taken out supplementary health insurance, thus creating an additional insurance fund for themselves, without having given anything for it in the past. Also, if the insurers had any claims against such insured persons, they would of course be time-barred, whereas the contested solution allows the insurers to charge for their (non)services for any number of years back, including years for which the insured persons could rely on the limitation period.
The proposed amendment would also put supplementary health insurance on an equal footing with other insurance. For example, in the case of property insurance, the premium is not higher, no matter how late (or early) the insured insured insured his/her house or car. There, the premium is always the same for the same insured value and for all.