Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-11-Speech-4-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040311.3.4-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to echo the many compliments that have been addressed to the rapporteur. She has compiled an excellent report, with a pertinent appeal for more European cooperation in health care and care of the elderly. This cooperation should not be restricted to public health, the quantitative and preventive aspects, but should also pertain to the cost-conscious and effective handling of provisions and the reinforcement of the financial basis for the health costs and the costs resulting from an ageing population. The Directorate-General for social affairs and employment should play an active role in this.
I have mainly focused on the aspects of financing and supporting the national care systems, and have tabled a number of amendments to that effect which relate to the internal market
an amendment to paragraph 37 which, to my disappointment, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wishes to delete. Decisions by the Court of Justice about the internal market already affect the national health systems. The funding of care is no longer a purely national matter. Many fellow MEPs from different Member States fail to understand why I make this into such an important issue. They continue to stress that health care must be protected from the market forces, that it is of general interest and, consequently, it has nothing to do with the rules on competition and free movement. I would like to say to them – and to Mr Herman Schmid in particular – that this has not been the case for a long time. We cannot be blind to private commercial parties within the health market operating according to free-market logistics. That is why we must provide a solid counterweight against market forces.
In the Netherlands, there is currently a discussion about the review of the public health cost system, in respect of which it is planned to hand this over completely to private health cost insurers. I see this as a risky strategy as long as there is no framework provided for it. I have nothing against private insurance companies, as Mr Karas can attest, but the government should be able to put sufficient conditions in place. It should not be possible, for example, for sick people to be turned down, for people with a high health risk to have to pay a higher premium, or for insurance cover to be more expensive for women because they can fall pregnant.
The Dutch Cabinet takes little account of the fact that the European agreements about the internal market could thwart its plans. If, in due course, insurance companies feel too restricted by the government, they can head to the European Court and refer to the European rules. This will be at the expense of the weakest groups. The national governments will then blame Europe. I should like to prevent that from happening and that is why we must try to achieve better coordination at European level.
One last remark: I am pleased with Mr Solbes' announcement that a progress report will soon follow for the high-level reflection process. I am really looking forward to this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples