Before: Continuity Through Change
It’s only when we get what we want that we realize what we had to give up to get it.
This biting aphorism unfortunately applies to many situations in our lives. I will apply this here to the paradigm shift in the way France has been governed in recent years.
Perhaps we had grown a little weary, before, of this situation in which temporary dominance alternated between governments with seemingly opposing views. It felt like we were constantly putting things together and taking them apart.
However, we didn’t realize that, in reality, the vast majority of decisions were, in a sense, a continuation of previous ones. Our attention was focused on each side’s signature measures, while we overlooked their shared commitment on many issues to strive for a coherent, substantive approach.
We generally had a genuine desire to limit deficits and avoid excessive government control over the nation’s finances, so as not to discourage job creation and keep unemployment in check.
Was it completely satisfactory? No. However, successive governments since the 1980s had finally managed to reduce the unemployment rate toRanked 8th among the concerns of the French (https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/ce-qui-preoccupe-les-francais), even though it had been a source of anxiety for several generations since the 1980s.
They have all tried to reform the pension system to adapt to the aging population and secure a better future for our youth.
Now: Stagnation and Inconsistency
All that has changed. At first, it was just a gradual erosion of shared political will a series of “rebellions.” These movements eventually gained the upper hand over the political establishment, and the French political landscape became fractured.
Anyone can voice their opinion loud and clear. That’s what we got. What have we lost? Responsible political action. The only consensus that the assemblies can reach is the most demagogic kind, and the government is “scraping by” without any coherence or long-term vision, just to keep everything from collapsing in the short term.
For us insurers, this is, of course, reflected—among other things—in our health insurance policies.
On the one hand, there is a desire to eliminate supplemental health insurance plans or to significantly limit their role and entrust a larger portion of that role to Social Security (the so-called “Grande Sécu”).
This has been illustrated by various pieces of legislation that are increasingly prescriptive and restrictive (ANI, 100% Santé), driving up coverage levels and paving the way for these standardized components to be transferred to the mandatory health insurance system.
On the other hand, there is a completely contradictory desire to scale back the role of social security.
Add to that the rise in various taxes and fees, coupled with demagogic and illusory pressure on insurers to limit the increase in premiums—an increase made inevitable by public policies themselves.
In fact, by requiring supplemental health insurance plans to reimburse “copayments,” then implementing the “100% Santé” program, and by requiring companies to purchase responsible supplemental health insurance plans, the government itself has removed the barriers to patient accountability created by out-of-pocket costs.
One of the latest proposals is to ban irresponsible supplemental coverage options in corporate contracts on the grounds that they are “inflationary,” even though legislation in recent years has introduced a flood of regulations that are infinitely more inflationary.
I don’t do what I say; I don’t say what I do
So why is the government pushing for even more cuts to social security coverage, which will immediately affect those with supplemental health insurance precisely because of the “responsible contract” that requires these providers to cover the cost of these cuts?
Because it won’t be the same people who will pay. Social security is funded primarily by workers (young people), whereas the burden of supplemental health insurance premiums is proportionally much higher for retirees.
The government is quietly seeking to “compensate” for its lack of action on pension reform by shifting the burden from the working population to retirees through supplemental health insurance plans, all while disparaging those plans.
That’s what “The Drunken Boat” is all about: I don’t do what I say, and I don’t say what I do.
Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried throughout history.” This means it is unrealistic to blame our leaders or elected officials for this situation. We’re the ones who put them there. It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that we recognize that compromise and a certain degree of unity are the way to restore coherence to public policy.
Adlen Yousfi
