If you ignore for a moment that it was about the future of statutory health insurance, the solvency of the health insurance companies and the trust of citizens in an exhausted government, the beginning of “Maischberger” on Tuesday evening could also have been an experiment on Berlin temperaments. Three commentators sat there – Kristina Dunz from the editorial network Germany, the journalist Hans-Ulrich Jörges and the science journalist Dirk Steffens – and looked at the black and red like three caricatures at the same steaming coalition pot: one with a capital thermometer, the other with a demolition hammer, the third with a democratic fire extinguisher.
The first question was whether this government still had reason to celebrate a year after it started. The answers sounded more like a damage assessment than a birthday speech. Steffens reminded that this coalition, as bad as it was going, might still be needed; If it breaks, worse things will happen. Markus Söder’s dictum about the “last patron of democracy” was sharp, but not completely wrong. Dunz contradicted the finding that the Union and the SPD did not fit together: In view of the growing fringes, they were the “big center bloc” that would have to carry out reforms. It’s just that this block isn’t particularly good at being a block at the moment.
Jörges wanted to know little about protection. Friedrich Merz is weak in leadership, the SPD is “outright knocked out”, the coalition is “completely finished”. He later called Lars Klingbeil the “general spoiler” of the government because the finance minister was at the Health care reform took two billion euros from the health fund. And then, since Jörges obviously didn’t come with small hammers, he also said that the Chancellor was “a little lazy”. That was the moment when, even in a program that doesn’t mind exaggeration, the suspicion arose that a man who, as Chancellor, probably attends more appointments than other people answer emails, was being described as if the Chancellery was a spa administration with a view.
Dunz countered that no one comes to the Chancellery lazy; Steffens too. But the argument behind the rudeness stuck: This government announces the autumn of reforms, then the winter, then probably at some point the spring of reforms – and the question is always whether politics is already happening or whether expectations are still being managed.
The minister of material compulsion
Maischberger sat the second part of the evening in this gap. If this coalition has really delivered something, it has at least been health care reform. You could almost hear the word “delivered” still floating in the studio when the delivery was already complained about.
Now sat Nina WarkenFederal Health Minister of the CDU, and Britta Haßelmann, parliamentary group leader of the Greens, at the table. Visually, the scene was so neatly arranged that it could be mistaken for a director’s idea. Warken and Maischberger in chic costumes, with heels and the studio suitability that makes politics seem like a serious business with smooth surfaces. Haßelmann stands next to her in a leather jacket and sneakers, as if she had rushed straight from the parliamentary group meeting to the TV studio. That wasn’t a political analysis, but it told a lot about the distribution of roles: here the minister of objective pressure, there the opposition woman of contradiction. In between, Maischberger, who had to turn a billion-dollar hole into an understandable television show.
Warken started where ministers start in such moments: with stability. “Stable contribution rates” are the big goal, she said; important for citizens, companies, non-wage labor costs and the competitiveness of the country. The additional contribution has doubled in the past three years. The message: First the finances have to hold up, then the system can get better. Family doctor accessible, specialist appointment possible, hospital nearby – Warken listed the promises of health care that is still officially considered normal in Germany, but in many places has long sounded like a nostalgic claim.
Attempt to “take the insured for a fool”
Haßelmann didn’t let her get away with this introduction. “I think contributions will continue to rise,” she predicted dryly. This was no small objection, but an attack on the core of Warken’s narrative. The reform will not be enough to stabilize contributions, let alone reduce them. The finance commission appointed by Warken delivered 66 suggestions. According to Haßelmann, “we could have really made something out of them”. Contribution reductions of two percent were possible. Instead, the government is protecting the pharmaceutical industry and the budget.
This is where the real argument broke out. Not CDU against the Greens, not minister against opposition, but federal budget against contributors. Haßelmann targeted the so-called non-insurance benefits, especially the health costs of citizens’ benefit recipients. There are around twelve billion euros available that the state would actually have to cover. If the federal government were to do this, a large part of the statutory health insurance deficit would be closed. It was one of those calculations that are dangerous on television because they remain understandable even when the answer becomes more complicated.
Warken admitted that she, too, would have wished for more at this point. There is now an “entry point”: the amount that the federal government pays per citizen’s benefit recipient should increase from 144 euros to a good 217 euros in 2031. Maischberger countered this with the criticism of the health insurance companies: 250 million euros in relief on the one hand, two billion euros less federal subsidy on the other. This means a net 1.75 billion euros more burden for insured persons and employers. Jens Baas from the Techniker Krankenkasse called this a “little prank” and an attempt to “take the insured for a fool”.
The unreasonable demands on contributors
The sentence of the evening was on the table. For Warken it was more dangerous than any opposition formula because it did not come from Haßelmann’s mouth, but from the world of those who have to do the math. Haßelmann gratefully took it up: Lars Klingbeil was “using the contributions of the insured for the federal government”. This is anything but a reform that stabilizes contributions.
Warken did not respond refuting this net bill. She moved into the big budget logic. The gap should be closed, a budget drawn up, the country should not be allowed to go into further debt; The social security systems would also have to contribute to consolidation. Actually, it wasn’t nothing. But on television it sounded like the answer of a minister who is supposed to explain why the insured people don’t pay more and instead explains why the state has to spend less.
That was Warken’s problem that evening. Not that she seemed uninformed. On the contrary: she spoke calmly, orderly, with attention to detail. But the logic of the federal budget stood head-on against the logic of the contributors. Anyone who has to pay more at the pharmacy, gets less for dentures or is anxious about checking preventive services rarely feels comforted by the fact that the finance minister has drawn up a solid budget.
Maischberger continued to work through the unreasonable demands: higher co-payments for medication, less for dentures, skin cancer screening with reservations. Haßelmann spoke of a “social imbalance”. People have a sense for “when something is wrong” – namely when they are making savings personally but the pharmaceutical industry is being spared.
Warken objected vigorously. The industry will certainly be involved and the manufacturer’s discount will be increased, just in a different way than proposed by the Commission. Companies that carried out clinical studies or produced active ingredients in Germany should be better off. They want to keep this industry in the country because of innovations, jobs and secure access to medication.
Merz, on the other hand, drives “a new pig through the village” every week
The chapter on the sugar levy offered a nice volte. In the past, the CDU would have torpedoed something like this as a green patronizing policy, Maischberger reminded smugly; Now Warken brought it in himself. Is this black fundraising? Warken didn’t even pretend that her party would be united in celebration. Of course, the CDU and CSU did not march forward with “flags flying” on this issue. However, it is a preventive measure; It’s not just about money, but about health. That’s how quickly things can happen in political Berlin: what yesterday was ideological control is now called health policy insight – as long as the financial situation is serious enough.
Haßelmann naturally had little objection to the sugar levy; for her it was all about the whole thing. The country needs reforms in terms of health insurance, care and pensions. But if you want to be willing to change, you have to create a social climate for it. Friedrich Merz, on the other hand, drives “a new pig through the village” every week: sometimes people are too lazy, sometimes they don’t work enough, sometimes it’s about “part-time lifestyle”. That was the moment when the health care reform completely became a coalition criticism. A government that has to explain unreasonable demands to its citizens should not insult them in advance. A not particularly complicated principle – and perhaps therefore one of the most convincing of this evening.
Warken countered that the government had done far more than was publicly perceived. You have to communicate better, find a common narrative, and become faster. It almost sounded as if this coalition didn’t primarily need reforms, but rather couples therapy with Powerpoint. Haßelmann, in turn, replied that as a democrat she did not want new elections or chaos, but simply a government that pulled itself together.
Merz should develop more empathy for the citizens and less for himself; his self-pity for being treated badly was “tearful”. Warken defended her chancellor: He had only pointed out tough discussions and could certainly tolerate criticism. At the end, Maischberger wanted to know whether there had been shouting during the exam in Villa Borsig. Warken didn’t notice anything. Then, Maischberger concluded dryly, it couldn’t have been loud. For this evening it almost bordered on a message of peace.
The rest of the show inevitably seemed paler afterwards. Donald Trump’s announced withdrawal of more than 5,000 US soldiers from Germany was still being negotiated as a possible retort to Merz’s statement about Iran. Merz had said that the USA had been humiliated by the mullahs. Dunz saw it as a typical Merz moment: a feel-good meeting with students, a harsh sentence, then the fatal international impact. Jörges didn’t find the school class problematic, but rather the fact that a chancellor would even casually drop such sentences. Once again it was about the leitmotif of the evening: the effect of words in a situation in which words have tangible consequences.
After this foreign policy excursion, the mental path led back to the actual findings of the evening. One thing above all became clear to Maischberger: why this reform is so dangerous for the coalition. Warken came up with the word stability. Haßelmann came up with the word imbalance. In between there was a bill that was so simple that it bothered the minister more than any moral outrage: 250 million in, two billion out. If politicians want to regain trust, they must be able to explain such bills without citizens getting the feeling that they are just an annoying footnote in the finance minister’s budget. This Tuesday, that was only possible to a limited extent. The health care reform remained a cold set of figures disguised as objective constraints. And the insured people who were supposedly involved were not in the studio. You will receive the bill later.
