Nursing decision in Karlsruhe: generative justice?

DThe family’s new decision brings relief. The Federal Constitutional Court is again forcing politicians to revise the burden in the social security system in favor of parents, but this only applies to the statutory long-term care insurance fund. Only there the judges see that the “generative contributions” of some parents have not yet been adequately appreciated, and have dismissed appropriate lawsuits against pension and health insurance companies. From Karlsruhe’s point of view, the policy has ensured a constitutional balance in retirement by recognizing parental leave, and in the healthcare system through non-contributory co-insurance for family members.

Thus, the Federal Constitutional Court finally sees very costly improvements to both systems that are particularly important and costly for social security. Everything else was unimaginable – even further compensation for the injustices through the mother’s pension was a challenge for contributors and taxpayers. However, in an international comparison, they are already heavily burdened, as the new data from the organizations of industrialized countries from OECD has just shown.

Any debt would be bad

Therefore, the decision “only” addressed to the nursing care insurance fund is not easy. Since the highly controversial ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court twenty years ago, childless people have to pay a higher premium than their parents.

The fact that families with large children are now to receive more relief through staggered contributions does not automatically mean even higher subsidies for childless people. Judges point to the possibility of higher federal subsidies.

To do this, however, the federal government would have to either increase taxes or increase debt. In addition to the childless, the former would likely also affect families who are now waiting for relief. The latter should be banned: if the traffic light coalition takes even more debt, it will also transfer care costs incurred today to future generations. But the task of financing baby boomers’ high pension rights is waiting for them.

In a sensational climate decision from two years ago, the judges spoke in favor of protecting young people’s freedom through timely climate protection. Shouldn’t judges also consider the financial deprivation of liberty that occurs when the welfare state makes promises of benefits that will excessively bind young people in the future?

In any event, the new family sentence contributes less to the clarification of generative justice than it might seem at first glance. This should give impetus to finding better answers to unresolved demographic questions.

Leave a Comment