During the debate surrounding health care reform, and ahead of the federal cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the German Social Welfare Association (SoVD) sharply criticized the plans put forward by Health Minister Nina Warken (CDU).
Michaela Engelmeier, the SoVD’s executive board chair, told Funke-Mediengruppe newspapers that while reform of the expensive yet inadequate healthcare system is clear to everyone, the biggest fiscal drain-the basic benefits funded by state tax money-must not be ignored. She argued that the state must fulfill its responsibility to finance the billions provided to people receiving basic security benefits. According to the SoVD, this is a task for all of society, not solely for those contributing to statutory health insurance.
Engelmeier also called the planned partial elimination of benefits for unmarried partners completely wrong, stating that this provision is fundamental to the principle of solidarity, especially as it provides relief for people of low and middle income. Removing this benefit, she explained, would disproportionately affect vulnerable families, noting that the existing exception for children under seven years old provides little more than a mere cushion.
She called the proposed reduction in sickness pay “totally incomprehensible and socially questionable”. The SoVD pointed out this move is highly non-solidary: it saves money on ordinary patients while private insurance holders and civil servants continue to receive high sums. Ahead of the cabinet meeting, the SoVD has demanded that the federal government institute an emergency brake.
Furthermore, Engelmeier criticized the pension plans reportedly advocated by Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU). She warned that Merz must stop attempting to erode the statutory pension by criticizing it, as this instills fear among millions. In her view, the statutory pension is significantly better than its reputation suggests, particularly compared to how the insurance industry portrays it.
The SoVD considers it highly debatable for the Chancellor to pre-empt the work of the Age Security Commission. They argued that a mandatory insurance system should not only cover the basic level of security and that greater reliance on the volatile capital market for future age security is unacceptable.
For millions, the statutory pension is the most important, if not the only, means of old-age provision. Engelmeier emphasized that this will remain the case as long as people lose enough money each month due to rising costs that they cannot save privately. While reform is necessary, she noted that the statutory pension provides a good, stable, and proven system. Therefore, the system needs targeted strengthening, which requires improving the labor market and increasing the statutory pension level to a perspective of 53%.
Merz himself had previously suggested that statutory pension insurance would only provide basic security in the future, a view supported by his party. When speaking at the CDA party meeting, Merz reaffirmed that the statutory pension remains the foundational pillar and that he has no intention of limiting it. However, he clarified that the discussion must move beyond simply maintaining the status quo for the statutory pension, requiring all three pillars-statutory, occupational (company-based), and private-to be reviewed and balanced anew.