On the two rental proposals I look to the view of the Federal council that existing laws are sufficient. They are supporting these because that’s what they do.
On the autoroutes I see 10 years or more of construction worsening the existing congestion by an order of magnitude. And it will be just as congested when completed. Also it does nothing to fix the problems at the Coppet junction and border at Divonne.
And we need another rail line along the foot of the Jura, including France voisine. In the last two years the single (double tracked) line Lausanne-Geneva has been severed twice once for weeks.
The health changes are supposed to be a wash cost-wise to the consumer. If so why do it? And I don’t see hospitals pushing out-patient vs in-patient. Also Doctors will still push in-patient because they get paid vey well for their five minute daily visit. Change is necessary but not this way.
-Sublet: there are already rules in place that I think are sufficient. The changes want to introduce 2 more situations for sublet to be blocked: length (max 2 yes) and “just because”.
For me both are unacceptable, one already has to show an intention to return (and that typically comes with a timeline) but of course it’s the " just because" which is worrisome. Owners prefer you to be out and to rent for higher price to the newcomers and with the prices raising and raising it’s becoming unaffordable to rent in the cities.
So will be a no for me.
-Health insurance
Don’t see how spreading the costs differently will reduce costs. Also want the government to really look at the whole model and change something more drastically.
So will be a no for me.
I am not sure I fully see through the health financing thing, but in doubt I follow the parliament and not the nay-sayers who want to block the law. Overall a wash for me. And yes, I am aware it does not fix the main issue.
That is a reasonable standpoint one can have. Only at the moment the parliament is unusually leaning to the right. Nationalrat as well as Ständerat where “die Mitte” is the strongest force. “Die Mitte” is a merger of CVP (Christian party, traditionally more conservative) and the BDP (Widmer Schlumpf “trick-party” to keep Blocher out by originally SVP people, if you allow me to say so).
So if one is a more conservative person, yes trust the government when in doupt. If not these days one has to look closely at every subject presented to vote on.
My -like is for having a stand point and stand up for it. Not for having the same.
As for standing up: I’m more center-left I guess but actually I don’t give a hoot about parties, I decide on any subject independently.
But why rent an apartment, if don’t need it for more than two years? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable if the owner rents it out to the family who would really live there? To me two years seems to be a reasonable term.
I was really surprised to learn that the level of hospitalisation in Switzerland was high comparing to the ambulant treatment. It doesn’t correspond to my observations at all. In my home country you can hardly get any treatment w/o hospitalisation and patients stay much longer at the hospital after surgeries, C-section, natural birth etc. So to me the Swiss approach seems fully reasonable.
Me too.
I think, most of the emigrants from ex- USSR tend to support the right parties, for we are “allergic” to the left ideology.
yeah but “the left” in Switzerland is not what we know about the USSR ideology. I dare to add for consideration that the difference/effect on the populace is striking.
Forgive me but that’s simply false. Entirely false.
From the SP’s 2010 party program (this is current as per their website):
OUR VISION: Democratic socialism
We social democrats have a visionary tradition. The vision is called democratic socialism. It is based on our fundamental values, respects the inviolable dignity of man and liberates him from exploitation, oppression and hardship. The core of democratic socialism is the democratisation of all areas of our society that can be democratised.
Democratisation of the economy
The SP Switzerland is a party that does not want to accept capitalism as the end and certainly not as the completion of history. It has a vision of an economic order that goes beyond capitalism and ultimately overcomes it through the democratisation of the economy.
Today, globalised capitalism is leading to the regulation of politics by the economy instead of democratic politics regulating the economy. The state is losing power, democracy is losing ground, the private pursuit of maximum profit is pushing the pursuit of the common good onto the defensive; the privatisation of public goods is being driven forward. The authoritarian economy jeopardises political democracy. The prevailing capitalist production model over-exploits the biological capacity of the earth.
You are missing the crux of the difference. Russia was a communist state. That is by definition authoritarian and not democratic. This allows Russia to transform into a fascist state - private industry is allowed but state control is everywhere. The SP in Switzerland is a social democratic party - there are healthy internal arguments as to how socialist and how much capitalist, but the fundamental belief is in democracy. The western democracies are built on a mix of socialism and capitalism; this includes the USA, even if many do not realise it.
I don’t see anything in this policy statement similar to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which could only be “won and maintained by the use of violence against the bourgeoisie”.
How is “democratic socialism” not authoritarian? Obviously this is against the owner’s intent, and therefore must be forced. You can’t remove ownership rights unless by use of force, which is inherently authoritarian (and in this context fascist).
This is precisely the angle that led to an authoritarian USSR. The same happened in every socialist/communist state, without exception. With tens of millions killed, no less.
Sigh. How again did we get here? Because I said I rather trust the parliament majority than the SP on Swiss healthcare policy. Now you link the SP to the Gulag system.
I honestly think your blind hate for anything “left” or “woke” is unhinged and pathological.
As said, already now you need to show intent to return. We sublet ours for 3 yes when we lived abroad and let another family live there - everyone benefited from the low rent and not over inflated rents like you find now in Zurich city. Extra bonus was the kids were able to return to neighborhood school.
I understand your pov though and if it was only the 2 yrs they were introducing, I see the point.
Issue is the “just because” part which basically gives the owner the right to refuse for any reason they deem acceptable. To me this is not right.
-like is for having a stand point and stand up for it. Not for having the same.