Health insurance reform, or: Flogging a dead horse
I've worked in the public sector for 15 years - nine of them in healthcare. First at the Red Cross, then in a hospital. Over time, I've focused on administrative processes and now find myself among those who are forced to fend off a dead horse. Hardly any knowledgeable colleague isn't waiting for urgently needed reforms. But the health insurance reform isn't a reform of the health insurance companies themselves, but rather of the cost-benefit ratio.
By Daniel Nuber
By Daniel Nuber
The problems in the healthcare and social services sectors are fundamental: staff and funding shortages collide with the now utopian demands of policyholders. A foot that has been hurting for five years is expected to be treated and resolved within minutes in the emergency room - woe betide anyone who isn't. Medical facilities have also become battlegrounds for cultural and social conflicts. Staff being attacked by relatives and patients, and corridors patrolled by security personnel as a result, are commonplace. So too is the sight of the permanently stationed police patrol, present because physical assaults have become so frequent and severe that the waiting time between an emergency call and the arrival of a mobile unit would be unacceptably long. Anyone looking for a job and complaining about the "obligatory fruit basket" should remember: It's better to nibble on an apple than to risk being beaten up for no reason at work.
These social tensions are compounded by economic ones. Measured by annual revenue and employment figures, the healthcare industry is one of the largest in Germany. In 2025, the sector generated approximately EUR538 billion in revenue (around 12 percent of the gross domestic product). This was achieved by roughly 7.7 million employees - representing almost 17 percent of all employees in Germany. Despite this, there's no money to be had. Hospitals are often outdated and on the verge of collapse. Private medical practices struggle with budget constraints, and necessary treatments are often no longer cost-effective because chronically ill patients, in particular, overwhelm the practice's budget. A general practitioner, for example, receives a fixed fee per insured patient and a fixed fee for maintaining the practice's resources (totaling approximately EUR40) per quarter and patient. This covers consultations, routine check-ups, Prescriptions, sick notes, and telephone consultations are all covered. He can only bill for certain individual services separately--such as ECGs or ultrasound examinations. So, if you visit your doctor every week to discuss your symptoms without needing a further examination, you're a loss for him. Hopefully, he'll never tell you this, nor will he ever try to sell you profitable tests; he certainly has the incentive to do so.
Hospitals operate similarly. The DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups) system, established in 2003, introduced flat-rate reimbursements. These function similarly to the budgeting of medical practices: For a specific diagnosis, the hospital receives a fixed payment for treatment and can also bill for certain specialized examinations and procedures separately. For medical facilities, it can therefore be quite profitable to perform specialized treatments and complex procedures. Here, too, an unintentional incentive has been created to do just that. Giving a 95-year-old patient an artificial heart valve doesn't improve their quality of life or life expectancy, but it certainly increases the hospital's bank balance. Hospitals - and it costs the health insurance company money.
However, it would be too simplistic to assume that all operators of medical facilities are driven by profit. Of course, we can use business metrics to calculate the price of a treatment, and this is done. As a society, however, we certainly also want the intangible value of a treatment to be taken into account. Shouldn't it be irrelevant how much a treatment costs if it ultimately leads to someone literally giving them a new life? Yes, it should; however, our economic system doesn't allow for this, because if we didn't define any cost coverage for treatments, they would naturally rise immeasurably. After all, everyone wants to be treated at any price, and healthcare providers, whether they like it or not, are dependent on economic principles and charge as much as possible. A cap is therefore necessary to make the healthcare system at least somewhat financially viable and must be balanced with the special circumstances of the Hippocratic Oath, because doctors should fundamentally not have to be guided by financial considerations.
However, we certainly don't have a revenue problem in the healthcare system. Our problem is... Expenditure. Hardly any other country operates as many hospitals as we do - there are almost 1,800 of them nationwide. In addition, we can choose from nearly 100 health insurance providers and find that the services offered are virtually identical. And unlike in some countries, we in Germany are world champions at going to the doctor. In Denmark, you'll be turned away from a doctor's office if you only want to see them with a cough, a runny nose, and hoarseness, and you'll have to seek advice from a pharmacy. In Great Britain...In the Netherlands and other countries, specially trained nurses even prescribe chemotherapy independently when the diagnosis and treatment plan are clear. This is unthinkable in Germany. Despite the resulting high costs of treatment, neither life expectancy nor health is increasing. Germans are ill more often than average in Europe, averaging 3.6 weeks, and die about 2-3 years earlier than people in neighboring countries. What are we doing wrong?
We react to our predominantly unhealthy lifestyles with prescriptions. Instead of getting more exercise, we visit the orthopedist; instead of eating healthily, we take medication. We don't connect all these associated costs with money, and we certainly aren't aware that we have to pay them ourselves. Those with statutory health insurance simply pull out their cards and don't connect the services offered with bills that have to be paid. Therefore, two aspects in particular need reform: the attitude of the insured and the services offered, which have completely lost all sense of proportion. The government's so-called health insurance reform hardly addresses any of this.
Instead of incorporating more exercise into our lifestyles, we see orthopedic surgeons; instead of eating healthily, we take medication. Instead of cutting sensible services (such as skin cancer screenings), we should be examining why we operate so many health insurance funds that barely differ in their service offerings. One hundred funds also means one hundred administrations, and this creates synergy effects: Although each health insurance fund essentially offers the same range of services, the administrative processes are not identical. Doctors' offices and hospitals have to adapt to this, which consumes resources and devours capital. The only point of agreement--as with any insurance company--is the desire to find any excuse not to pay for a service. This is precisely why our health insurance system is completely inefficient. The result is the same for all funds, but the path to get there is always different. McDonald's would never have become so successful if every branch had assembled its burgers differently--the recipe for success lies in consistent preparation in the same time, with the same quality, and at the same price. If we operated just one large health insurance fund, into which everyone pays, which follows established and consistent processes and operates with a results-oriented approach, we could save costs without having to significantly cut services.
Centralizing the health insurance system would be an intervention in the free market economy. In fact, an increasing number of small health insurance funds have filed for bankruptcy in recent years because they are no longer competitive, so one could argue that the market is regulating the oversupply itself. However, until this self-regulation is complete--which will take years or even decades--we will continue to pay for a system that has long been unsustainable. Here, we simply need to adapt to reality: constantly rising social security contributions with ever-decreasing benefits will not incentivize anyone to work the extra hours desired by Merz, as the financial benefit is often negligible; you work more, your tax burden increases, your contributions rise, and you still receive fewer benefits in return. At the same time, a migration from statutory to private health insurance is already taking place. Therefore, genuine structural reforms are needed to ensure the efficiency of the entire healthcare system.
Because the health insurance funds are dependent on so-called service providers--that is, hospitals, doctors' offices, and other billing institutions. If health insurance companies become insolvent or many services are removed from their catalogs, this leads to financial losses for these very service providers. Let's consider the skin cancer screening currently under discussion: according to the German fee schedule for physicians (GOÄ), this costs between 100 and 170 euros as a private service. For many people in this country, that's a lot of money--so much money that they won't use this preventative examination if it's no longer covered by insurance. This is bad for those who develop cancer and could have prevented it with such an examination, but it's also an economic problem for the service providers--especially if more and more services are affected. Furthermore, this is a smokescreen. The overall societal costs of an illness that could have been prevented with minimal expense are significantly higher than the savings achieved by cutting services. The same applies to the proposal to reduce fees for the already scarce and overburdened psychotherapists. The consequences of untreated mental illness far outweigh any potential fees.
Beyond centralizing the health insurance system, a significant reduction in the approximately 1,800 hospitals in Germany would also be necessary. The gescDuring his term in office, German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach followed the recommendations of the Intensive Care Medicine Working Group and, with his reforms, intended to strengthen maximum care hospitals while simultaneously closing smaller hospitals or converting them into basic care providers. This reform approach was fundamentally sound. Small hospitals often lack the specialized staff, experience, and infrastructure to effectively perform complex treatments. However, the DRG system created numerous incentives for even the smallest village hospital to offer operations it is not actually equipped to handle. This is reflected in the annual quality reports: the chances of survival after resuscitation, a serious accident, or complex surgery are significantly higher in a large hospital than in a small one. In Germany, we operate 76 maximum care hospitals nationwide. This means that approximately 1,700 hospitals are small and cannot offer competitive quality, particularly for complex medical conditions.
And yet, we cling to them - this is a politically motivated decision. Of course, mayors, district administrators, and state premiers have a strong interest in maintaining medical infrastructure and are also aware that the general public has little understanding of quality and key performance indicators. What matters to them is that healthcare providers are nearby and readily available. Ensuring regional services secures votes, regardless of how well a patient fares in a small hospital - fortunately, most people never even reach that point. However, this underlying political stance clashes dramatically with the necessity of structural reforms.
A more efficient and higher-quality approach would be a manageable number of smaller hospitals and improvements to tertiary care centers. Tertiary care centers are hospitals that offer a broad spectrum of medical treatments and specialties, have high patient volumes, and consequently, extensive experience, which demonstrably improves quality and outcomes. We repeatedly hear the argument that patients and their families don't want to travel 80-100 kilometers to the nearest hospital. Understandable. But surely it's better to travel further and be more likely to receive better treatment than to die just around the corner.
The concern, which I know very well from conversations, that in an emergency the nearest hospital must not be 50+ kilometers away, is also unfounded. Planned admissions are completely unproblematic anyway, and in life-threatening emergencies, even with longer travel times, ground transport is no longer necessarily used; instead, a helicopter is dispatched. This compensates for any delays and is often as fast as, or even faster than, an ambulance. One point must be made, however: visits from relatives would naturally become more difficult if the journey takes significantly longer. But the quality of treatment is also better, and that should be the focus, not personal or political sensitivities.
Because these are precisely the priorities, the health insurance reform is not a structural reform. It merely cuts benefits without examining why the system is so expensive and inefficient in the first place, or what alternatives exist. There is no interest in doing so - in this situation, policyholders are the weakest group, the easiest to take anything away from. After all, the reform proposals hardly involve any cuts to the health insurance funds or any changes to their fundamental structures.
Nevertheless, some of the reform proposals are correct. For example, it is necessary to increase the out-of-pocket costs for medications from EUR5 to EUR7.50, not least because there has been no adjustment since 2004. Restricting free co-insurance for spouses is also a necessary step, as it is difficult to understand what economic benefit this is supposed to have - other than, of course, making marriage more attractive. And capping advertising expenditures and the remuneration of executives at health insurance funds is also necessary. However, all of this is just a drop in the ocean.
What would be far more urgent is initiating a change in public opinion and encouraging people to take more personal responsibility. Germans are world champions at visiting the doctor - we see an average of ten times a year, the French only six, and the Swedes and Finns only four. As mentioned above, we're still not healthier and even die earlier.
Our short, unhealthy lives can't be attributed to a lack of willingness to spend money, since we really splurge on healthcare.The only long-term way to reduce costs is to minimize services and realign treatment processes. A cough, a runny nose, or hoarseness doesn't require a doctor's examination. Even complex therapies could be prescribed by a well-trained (or even university-educated) nurse--the doctor only gets involved in complex cases and treatments.
This would provide real relief and, in the long run, might even lead to the medically spoiled population taking a more active role in their own health. High expectations frustrate medical professionals and lead to frustration. Anyone who, after six years or more of medical school and licensure, has to discuss the accuracy of a diagnosis and treatment with a layperson advised by ChatGPT is certainly not going to do so willingly, and probably not for 10 hours a day until retirement.
In addition to these expectations, hospitals in particular face a problem that is largely ignored by the public: they are involuntarily transforming into nursing and retirement homes. Many nursing homes have long been unable to care for all their residents due to staff shortages. Anyone who is "not feeling well" is quickly transported by ambulance to the nearest hospital, and, as harsh as it may sound, the hospital has little chance of discharging them. In reality, this means that the elderly, frail patient from the nursing home, who only ended up in the hospital because the nursing staff was overwhelmed, continues to receive care there without any medical necessity. The hospital has no mandate to treat them. The patient's condition cannot be improved, the bed is unnecessarily occupied, and the costs remain high because the hospital staff and doctors are still there and must be paid. At least in this situation, there is still a chance of being transferred back to the nursing home.
The situation is different with the so-called "social indication," which the police and emergency services use out of desperation when they find a neglected person in their home. This person is then admitted to a hospital without medical justification (hence the term "social indication") because it is assumed they can no longer cope on their own. Nurses and doctors, of course, still care for them, nurse them back to health, and then try to find them a place in a nursing or retirement home. This can take several weeks. During this time, practically no billable services are provided because, as they say, the patient doesn't have an illness but rather problems managing daily life. They, too, occupy a bed and, strictly speaking, have no business being in the hospital because they aren't ill.
However, neither they, nor the police, nor the emergency services are responsible for this, but rather our dilapidated structures throughout the entire healthcare system. These, too, remain untouched by the health insurance reform.
There is no panacea for our healthcare sector, because in the form we have operated it for decades, it is already dead. It must be fundamentally rethought, free from sensitivities, demands, and wishful thinking. Reforms must be based on reality--on what What's coming now doesn't address the root of the problem. In fact, it doesn't address the problem at all.
June 5, 2026
©Daniel Nuber
In his book "Rust, Weed, and Rakija," Daniel Nuber describes his journey through the Balkans. He is also a certified specialist in the health and social services sector and works as an author, videographer, and photographer.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW BOOK
These social tensions are compounded by economic ones. Measured by annual revenue and employment figures, the healthcare industry is one of the largest in Germany. In 2025, the sector generated approximately EUR538 billion in revenue (around 12 percent of the gross domestic product). This was achieved by roughly 7.7 million employees - representing almost 17 percent of all employees in Germany. Despite this, there's no money to be had. Hospitals are often outdated and on the verge of collapse. Private medical practices struggle with budget constraints, and necessary treatments are often no longer cost-effective because chronically ill patients, in particular, overwhelm the practice's budget. A general practitioner, for example, receives a fixed fee per insured patient and a fixed fee for maintaining the practice's resources (totaling approximately EUR40) per quarter and patient. This covers consultations, routine check-ups, Prescriptions, sick notes, and telephone consultations are all covered. He can only bill for certain individual services separately--such as ECGs or ultrasound examinations. So, if you visit your doctor every week to discuss your symptoms without needing a further examination, you're a loss for him. Hopefully, he'll never tell you this, nor will he ever try to sell you profitable tests; he certainly has the incentive to do so.
Hospitals operate similarly. The DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups) system, established in 2003, introduced flat-rate reimbursements. These function similarly to the budgeting of medical practices: For a specific diagnosis, the hospital receives a fixed payment for treatment and can also bill for certain specialized examinations and procedures separately. For medical facilities, it can therefore be quite profitable to perform specialized treatments and complex procedures. Here, too, an unintentional incentive has been created to do just that. Giving a 95-year-old patient an artificial heart valve doesn't improve their quality of life or life expectancy, but it certainly increases the hospital's bank balance. Hospitals - and it costs the health insurance company money.
However, it would be too simplistic to assume that all operators of medical facilities are driven by profit. Of course, we can use business metrics to calculate the price of a treatment, and this is done. As a society, however, we certainly also want the intangible value of a treatment to be taken into account. Shouldn't it be irrelevant how much a treatment costs if it ultimately leads to someone literally giving them a new life? Yes, it should; however, our economic system doesn't allow for this, because if we didn't define any cost coverage for treatments, they would naturally rise immeasurably. After all, everyone wants to be treated at any price, and healthcare providers, whether they like it or not, are dependent on economic principles and charge as much as possible. A cap is therefore necessary to make the healthcare system at least somewhat financially viable and must be balanced with the special circumstances of the Hippocratic Oath, because doctors should fundamentally not have to be guided by financial considerations.
However, we certainly don't have a revenue problem in the healthcare system. Our problem is... Expenditure. Hardly any other country operates as many hospitals as we do - there are almost 1,800 of them nationwide. In addition, we can choose from nearly 100 health insurance providers and find that the services offered are virtually identical. And unlike in some countries, we in Germany are world champions at going to the doctor. In Denmark, you'll be turned away from a doctor's office if you only want to see them with a cough, a runny nose, and hoarseness, and you'll have to seek advice from a pharmacy. In Great Britain...In the Netherlands and other countries, specially trained nurses even prescribe chemotherapy independently when the diagnosis and treatment plan are clear. This is unthinkable in Germany. Despite the resulting high costs of treatment, neither life expectancy nor health is increasing. Germans are ill more often than average in Europe, averaging 3.6 weeks, and die about 2-3 years earlier than people in neighboring countries. What are we doing wrong?
We react to our predominantly unhealthy lifestyles with prescriptions. Instead of getting more exercise, we visit the orthopedist; instead of eating healthily, we take medication. We don't connect all these associated costs with money, and we certainly aren't aware that we have to pay them ourselves. Those with statutory health insurance simply pull out their cards and don't connect the services offered with bills that have to be paid. Therefore, two aspects in particular need reform: the attitude of the insured and the services offered, which have completely lost all sense of proportion. The government's so-called health insurance reform hardly addresses any of this.
Instead of incorporating more exercise into our lifestyles, we see orthopedic surgeons; instead of eating healthily, we take medication. Instead of cutting sensible services (such as skin cancer screenings), we should be examining why we operate so many health insurance funds that barely differ in their service offerings. One hundred funds also means one hundred administrations, and this creates synergy effects: Although each health insurance fund essentially offers the same range of services, the administrative processes are not identical. Doctors' offices and hospitals have to adapt to this, which consumes resources and devours capital. The only point of agreement--as with any insurance company--is the desire to find any excuse not to pay for a service. This is precisely why our health insurance system is completely inefficient. The result is the same for all funds, but the path to get there is always different. McDonald's would never have become so successful if every branch had assembled its burgers differently--the recipe for success lies in consistent preparation in the same time, with the same quality, and at the same price. If we operated just one large health insurance fund, into which everyone pays, which follows established and consistent processes and operates with a results-oriented approach, we could save costs without having to significantly cut services.
Centralizing the health insurance system would be an intervention in the free market economy. In fact, an increasing number of small health insurance funds have filed for bankruptcy in recent years because they are no longer competitive, so one could argue that the market is regulating the oversupply itself. However, until this self-regulation is complete--which will take years or even decades--we will continue to pay for a system that has long been unsustainable. Here, we simply need to adapt to reality: constantly rising social security contributions with ever-decreasing benefits will not incentivize anyone to work the extra hours desired by Merz, as the financial benefit is often negligible; you work more, your tax burden increases, your contributions rise, and you still receive fewer benefits in return. At the same time, a migration from statutory to private health insurance is already taking place. Therefore, genuine structural reforms are needed to ensure the efficiency of the entire healthcare system.
Because the health insurance funds are dependent on so-called service providers--that is, hospitals, doctors' offices, and other billing institutions. If health insurance companies become insolvent or many services are removed from their catalogs, this leads to financial losses for these very service providers. Let's consider the skin cancer screening currently under discussion: according to the German fee schedule for physicians (GOÄ), this costs between 100 and 170 euros as a private service. For many people in this country, that's a lot of money--so much money that they won't use this preventative examination if it's no longer covered by insurance. This is bad for those who develop cancer and could have prevented it with such an examination, but it's also an economic problem for the service providers--especially if more and more services are affected. Furthermore, this is a smokescreen. The overall societal costs of an illness that could have been prevented with minimal expense are significantly higher than the savings achieved by cutting services. The same applies to the proposal to reduce fees for the already scarce and overburdened psychotherapists. The consequences of untreated mental illness far outweigh any potential fees.
Beyond centralizing the health insurance system, a significant reduction in the approximately 1,800 hospitals in Germany would also be necessary. The gescDuring his term in office, German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach followed the recommendations of the Intensive Care Medicine Working Group and, with his reforms, intended to strengthen maximum care hospitals while simultaneously closing smaller hospitals or converting them into basic care providers. This reform approach was fundamentally sound. Small hospitals often lack the specialized staff, experience, and infrastructure to effectively perform complex treatments. However, the DRG system created numerous incentives for even the smallest village hospital to offer operations it is not actually equipped to handle. This is reflected in the annual quality reports: the chances of survival after resuscitation, a serious accident, or complex surgery are significantly higher in a large hospital than in a small one. In Germany, we operate 76 maximum care hospitals nationwide. This means that approximately 1,700 hospitals are small and cannot offer competitive quality, particularly for complex medical conditions.
And yet, we cling to them - this is a politically motivated decision. Of course, mayors, district administrators, and state premiers have a strong interest in maintaining medical infrastructure and are also aware that the general public has little understanding of quality and key performance indicators. What matters to them is that healthcare providers are nearby and readily available. Ensuring regional services secures votes, regardless of how well a patient fares in a small hospital - fortunately, most people never even reach that point. However, this underlying political stance clashes dramatically with the necessity of structural reforms.
A more efficient and higher-quality approach would be a manageable number of smaller hospitals and improvements to tertiary care centers. Tertiary care centers are hospitals that offer a broad spectrum of medical treatments and specialties, have high patient volumes, and consequently, extensive experience, which demonstrably improves quality and outcomes. We repeatedly hear the argument that patients and their families don't want to travel 80-100 kilometers to the nearest hospital. Understandable. But surely it's better to travel further and be more likely to receive better treatment than to die just around the corner.
The concern, which I know very well from conversations, that in an emergency the nearest hospital must not be 50+ kilometers away, is also unfounded. Planned admissions are completely unproblematic anyway, and in life-threatening emergencies, even with longer travel times, ground transport is no longer necessarily used; instead, a helicopter is dispatched. This compensates for any delays and is often as fast as, or even faster than, an ambulance. One point must be made, however: visits from relatives would naturally become more difficult if the journey takes significantly longer. But the quality of treatment is also better, and that should be the focus, not personal or political sensitivities.
Because these are precisely the priorities, the health insurance reform is not a structural reform. It merely cuts benefits without examining why the system is so expensive and inefficient in the first place, or what alternatives exist. There is no interest in doing so - in this situation, policyholders are the weakest group, the easiest to take anything away from. After all, the reform proposals hardly involve any cuts to the health insurance funds or any changes to their fundamental structures.
Nevertheless, some of the reform proposals are correct. For example, it is necessary to increase the out-of-pocket costs for medications from EUR5 to EUR7.50, not least because there has been no adjustment since 2004. Restricting free co-insurance for spouses is also a necessary step, as it is difficult to understand what economic benefit this is supposed to have - other than, of course, making marriage more attractive. And capping advertising expenditures and the remuneration of executives at health insurance funds is also necessary. However, all of this is just a drop in the ocean.
What would be far more urgent is initiating a change in public opinion and encouraging people to take more personal responsibility. Germans are world champions at visiting the doctor - we see an average of ten times a year, the French only six, and the Swedes and Finns only four. As mentioned above, we're still not healthier and even die earlier.
Our short, unhealthy lives can't be attributed to a lack of willingness to spend money, since we really splurge on healthcare.The only long-term way to reduce costs is to minimize services and realign treatment processes. A cough, a runny nose, or hoarseness doesn't require a doctor's examination. Even complex therapies could be prescribed by a well-trained (or even university-educated) nurse--the doctor only gets involved in complex cases and treatments.
This would provide real relief and, in the long run, might even lead to the medically spoiled population taking a more active role in their own health. High expectations frustrate medical professionals and lead to frustration. Anyone who, after six years or more of medical school and licensure, has to discuss the accuracy of a diagnosis and treatment with a layperson advised by ChatGPT is certainly not going to do so willingly, and probably not for 10 hours a day until retirement.
In addition to these expectations, hospitals in particular face a problem that is largely ignored by the public: they are involuntarily transforming into nursing and retirement homes. Many nursing homes have long been unable to care for all their residents due to staff shortages. Anyone who is "not feeling well" is quickly transported by ambulance to the nearest hospital, and, as harsh as it may sound, the hospital has little chance of discharging them. In reality, this means that the elderly, frail patient from the nursing home, who only ended up in the hospital because the nursing staff was overwhelmed, continues to receive care there without any medical necessity. The hospital has no mandate to treat them. The patient's condition cannot be improved, the bed is unnecessarily occupied, and the costs remain high because the hospital staff and doctors are still there and must be paid. At least in this situation, there is still a chance of being transferred back to the nursing home.
The situation is different with the so-called "social indication," which the police and emergency services use out of desperation when they find a neglected person in their home. This person is then admitted to a hospital without medical justification (hence the term "social indication") because it is assumed they can no longer cope on their own. Nurses and doctors, of course, still care for them, nurse them back to health, and then try to find them a place in a nursing or retirement home. This can take several weeks. During this time, practically no billable services are provided because, as they say, the patient doesn't have an illness but rather problems managing daily life. They, too, occupy a bed and, strictly speaking, have no business being in the hospital because they aren't ill.
However, neither they, nor the police, nor the emergency services are responsible for this, but rather our dilapidated structures throughout the entire healthcare system. These, too, remain untouched by the health insurance reform.
There is no panacea for our healthcare sector, because in the form we have operated it for decades, it is already dead. It must be fundamentally rethought, free from sensitivities, demands, and wishful thinking. Reforms must be based on reality--on what What's coming now doesn't address the root of the problem. In fact, it doesn't address the problem at all.
June 5, 2026
©Daniel Nuber
In his book "Rust, Weed, and Rakija," Daniel Nuber describes his journey through the Balkans. He is also a certified specialist in the health and social services sector and works as an author, videographer, and photographer.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW BOOK
Write a comment