Fact Check: Friedrich Merz vs Pediatrician Claims on Healthcare Reform

And then you show children, claiming I am deliberately destroying the future of these children. And I must honestly

tell you, that goes too far. I reject that with firm conviction. What you are doing in the healthcare

system and in the heart of it goes too far as well. A pediatrician meets Federal Chancellor

Friedrich Merz on RTL and holds nothing back in her criticism. She confronts Merz very directly about his policies

and even his oath of office. Merz tries to refute the accusations, but it does not come across as particularly

convincing. Let’s have a listen. Dear Mr. Merz, why are you breaking your oath of office to increase the

benefit of the people and avert harm from them, and enacting such inhumane, destructive laws like the GKV austerity

law? So, it is about healthcare reform, and the choice of words is quite tough.

Inhumane laws, oath of office broken. What do you say to that? Well, honestly, I think that goes a bit

beyond the normal measure of criticism. I mean, you can certainly say you don't agree with what we are doing. Okay, but

you are accusing us of the targeted, deliberate destruction of our healthcare system. Now, I have to tell

you, if you argue like that, you will hardly find an audience for your arguments. I am willing to accept

criticism, but accusing us, and me personally, of a deliberate breach of my oath of office is quite a tough

stance when we have problems that we need to solve. Agreed, but that goes too far. That is a personal attack, and

it goes too far. You are accusing me of deliberately—and then you show children—that I am deliberately

destroying the future of these children . And I must honestly tell you, that goes too far. I reject that with firm

conviction. You can criticize what we do. You can even criticize me personally, but that goes too far.

Well, her accusations are likely not completely out of thin air. After all, the woman is a pediatrician, a doctor,

and experiences firsthand in her daily work what austerity measures and additional burdens in the healthcare

system can mean. One can certainly argue about the alleged intent, which will be hard to prove, but she should

surely be able to formulate her own opinion on that clearly as well. What is almost more surprising is how angry

Merz becomes here. Instead of calmly deconstructing the criticism, he gets increasingly hung up on the choice of

words and appears visibly rattled. For someone in his position, that is remarkably thin-skinned. That

please. Yes, because what you are doing in the healthcare system also goes too far,

and I believe as a politician you are used to being handled with kid gloves, but I am at a point where I see the

suffering of the people. Take March, for example, regarding sick notes starting from the first day of illness.

What are you implying about people with that? That they're slacking off, that they're faking it, that we are

malingerers; and I have to say, this has been calculated by the National Association of Statutory Health

Insurance Physicians. It will lead to 30 million more patient contacts between doctor and patient. This

burdens a system that is already being massively budgeted and capped. And there is no evidence whatsoever that

there is any kind of abuse. And I have to say: It goes too far, because you are turning screws that don't need

turning, and you aren't turning the screws that do need to be turned. And so I said: I'm starting a petition, and

I really ask everyone to go online right now and do one thing: search for "petition sick note from day 1" and

sign it. And 330,000 people have already signed it, because you are fueling an overloaded system with

patient contacts that aren't necessary. Because I can say from my medical experience: people are more likely to

drag themselves to work while sick than to fake it. And that means, why do you distrust the public and make cuts to

the weakest? Let me have a chance to answer. We are returning the sick note policy to what

was in effect until 2021, and there was no petition from you back then either. We are doing it again, we

are reinstating what we suspended during the corona period to keep infection numbers...

This concerns the telephone sick note, which didn't exist, which did exist, and which is being abolished again. And

we will create a law that employers, employees, unions, and social associations can deviate from if they

agree upon it with their staff. We are restoring the situation we had until 2020. That is all, and that is what you

are complaining about now. It surprises me, honestly, a little bit. And here, März's answer is quite weak

in terms of substance. The doctor presents him with a concrete argument. More mandatory doctor visits mean

additional strain on an already overloaded system, without automatically solving a real problem.

Instead, he essentially only says that it existed before corona, so we are just restoring that state. But the fact

that a regulation applied in the past does not answer the question of whether it makes sense today. Conditions change

, burdens change, and it is precisely these consequences that the doctor is addressing. März is merely replacing a

substantive justification with a reference to the past. It surprises me that you don't

recognize the real problems in the healthcare system. Why have you only held the weakest accountable in this

entire reform? You are cutting 2.64 billion from the outpatient sector, hitting my patients, children, families

, people needing orthotics, people needing wheelchairs, but at the same time—and I repeat, 2.64 billion—you

are renovating Bellevue Palace for a billion. Where are your priorities, Mr. Merz?

Why haven't you held the pharmaceutical industry accountable as well? Why are you burdening the 74 million people

with statutory insurance in this country? Where are the privately insured?

So, that is the feeling many people have, that the healthcare reform comes at the expense of the insured, more so

the people than the hospitals or the pharma industry. That is a sentiment that some share.

That is a sentiment, but it does not reflect our law. In this law, we have included everyone involved in the

healthcare system, everyone—the pharmaceutical industry, the hospitals, by the way, with much protest from the

states. We have brought the doctors on board as well. We have called upon and compelled all parties in the healthcare

system to make savings contributions. But the insured are definitely taking a hit, it must be said.

Yes, the insured too, but not alone. The doctors as well, the hospitals, the health insurance

companies. We have included everyone, and the pharmaceutical industry too. Regarding the pharmaceutical industry,

that was a difficult tightrope walk for us. The margins in the pharmaceutical industry are different than is

generally assumed. They are so thin, by the way, with large plants in Saxony-Anhalt that I have visited. They

are so thin that if we cut their budgets any further, they will close their factories in Germany. And as a

doctor, you probably know better than I do that we now have significant supply problems with medications.

Yes, we are missing medications in the pharmacies. So, we are still including

the pharmaceutical industry to make a corresponding consolidation contribution to the statutory health

insurance. Well, I think you are making it a bit too easy for yourself. It hasn't been easy for us, but to put it

so simply and then link it to the federal government with such personal accusations, I think you are making it

too easy for yourself. And here again, Merz hardly answers the doctor's actual accusation. She cites

concrete burdens for those with statutory insurance, savings in the outpatient sector, and asks why cuts

are being made precisely where patients feel the consequences immediately. His answer ultimately boils down to the

fact that the situation is complicated and that she is making it too easy for herself. But that is exactly what a

Chancellor is there for: to solve difficult problems and set political priorities. Especially those with

statutory insurance have experienced in recent years that premiums and supplementary contributions are rising

while further savings are being discussed at the same time. At some point, it is no longer enough to just

explain how difficult everything is. It begs the question: if the answers provided so far aren't enough and real

solutions are supposedly so complicated , then why was Friedrich Merz so determined to become Chancellor? Feel

free to share your thoughts on all of this in the comments.