Part 1
A: There were two main reasons: One important reason was I with the policies of each auditorium Switzerland in relation to the future hearing aid fitting could not agree. Pro auditorium Switzerland has evolved over the past two years, more and more consistently and for a state procurement of tools, in our case, especially hearing aids, are used. Now I was really clear from the start that with a state procurement of tools, the situation of disabled people is not quite improve. It is rather complicated. It is probably not much cheaper. And I have been put into question.
addition, Pro auditorium Switzerland since last summer at the urging and advice of the Federal Social Insurance Office a very expensive, American public relations firm hired work, commissioned and partially paid for itself, with IV funds, with donations and membership fees. And this American wholesale company has no other aim than in Parliament mood to make this state procurement. And as central secretary I could just not answer that Pro auditorium in Switzerland this year, some 300,000 Swiss francs will be spent on publicity alone for this work. We have a responsibility to members and donors over and we can not just spend money for purposes such as are common in the private sector. An organization has a disability Special status. She has a very good reputation in the public and measures as those performed by Pro auditorium now will damage that reputation. And for me that was the point at which I was forced to resign.
Q: For us, it's almost not understandable when you consider what it must have for any consequences that the state buys tool - and it's not just about hearing aids, it's about resources. The Act refers to all tools. Theoretically, the federal government can later use the law to wheelchairs, or whatever to buy. - If you look at the whole considered economically considered, it is almost incomprehensible for us, as a concerned organization can thus support a proposal. With all due understanding of the economy measures that are necessary for the IV. Although the idealistic notion of the true IV, it is about small sums that can be saved in this way. But how come that the state purchasing and ensure that the supply of tools have been selected by the state, could be an advantage for us? How exactly is up with the Pro auditorium? How does each auditorium you to make such a decision and then support it?
A: The story actually began in 2005 when the federal government behind the back of each auditorium new contracts with suppliers the industry, in this case again the hearing aid supplier, graduated. At that time Switzerland was ruled Pro auditorium of any conversation. And the results of those contracts were quite simply that the hearing impaired were virtually take over the entire savings of the Federal Office, which is the IV. This was the first blow. Then came the second coup in 2008, when the Federal Office on discretion and secrecy, the Pro auditorium invited to set the standards for all state procurement of hearing aids. This was in many meetings set in secret Sun It could not come to the public, because the federal government itself, the Office itself was not sure whether this state Shopping would really come through. And then was so ago by the industry, the hearing aid industry brought forth the whole thing pre-federal administrative court has rejected this and the state procurement without legal basis.
And then, the Federal Office again approached each auditorium and is now used Pro auditorium to this state procurement and in Parliament, that is to advertise in public. It seems to me that the management of Pro auditorium Switzerland simply do not want to see the consequences. Just imagine: E is about 600 relatively frequently purchased tools. There are about 350 hearing aids, so that would be a separate species. You have to imagine now that the federal government want to buy or approximately 1,000 different small and large number of tools with hundreds of suppliers. And ever the idea of numbers makes you realize that this can certainly not go well, that would simply mean that the disabled individual is either very long wait for its other means to have or not get the right for him or herself to the market has to go and everything still have to buy the privately that he will not get from Berne. And this whole thing is to just economically, and above all from the perspective of those affected nonsense.
Well, the Federal Office stresses the time: Yes, it will only because the legal basis so that they as a means of pressuring may use the suppliers. But if you already so powerful and advance to the supplier stating the following: "Yes, we do not do not, we just want you to be pressured." Then they will laugh, yes. So this will certainly be no pressure to say in advance that no mans starts. So it can not be that you are not using it wants. They want to use it safely. And this is clear from the policy, the future of the Federal Office, so that one naturally has a power gain over the entire aid industry.
Q: And with respect to the victims.
A: And to those affected, that's right. This is so in fact I think the reason why because Pro auditorium in a completely wrong direction has fallen and no longer sees the consequences and also will not get out. For it promises to himself and a power gain for the association.
Q: If you read the comments from Agile and DOC to IV revision 6a, one realizes that the decision has actually caused the decision to Pro auditorium at Agile and DOK, to support this. And again without thinking what that actually has consequences for the victims, but in a reflex of solidarity has been said. "Yes if the deaf the like, then we can not but say no to" Have that on Pro audito those concerned about this informs all the plans and questioned? Have you ever affected in greater numbers to ever be able to comment on?
A: No, those affected were never actually driven. It was an orientation to the club directors. So yes Pro auditorium has 50 sections, associations. These were oriented at a time when it was actually quite clear when the matter was thus in the direction of state purchasing. One has also found that there was in the form of individual at least in this first stage big misunderstanding. You could see of course as an individual by not right. But I think the individual who needs hearing aid every six years, or even in shorter periods, who immediately said: "Yes. yes, it can not be, that I will not more of my hearing, but by a central office in Bern must refer" That the individual has actually noticed, but this is in the direction of Pro auditorium was never really accepted as an argument.
This is altogether a bit of the current regime in that association, that actually the votes, we are now saying even "the base" not to be heard. This depends of course on the structure of the collective membership. So it's not every individual member, but only the club.
Q: Do you see any other way? So what proposed by the federal government seems so at many politicians and policy makers to find sympathy. I have the impression that especially the left of a reflex, "anti-cheaters" reflex right now actually in favor again as a cascade, "If this is Agile, if the DOC for when the auditorium itself for Pro , we can not even be against it "And then this reflex." These evil cheaters must be punished "without really worrying about what that might ultimately have consequences for the victims!. Do you see a way how to achieve different, with the hearing aid fitting, for example, could act differently, and a savings effect could?
A: Yes, we have worked out at the beginning of 2010 a proposal. Which was unanimously adopted even in the first round of the leadership of Pro auditorium Switzerland. The government has provided no purchase, but a breakdown: We assume that for the medium would be to severely hearing-impaired people hearing aids available free of charge from the IV and the AVS. In contrast, we believe that the approximately 50-60% of the so-called "lifestyle" devices, which are devices for people to hear easily, but with a better understanding of a device - that is lately really the big increase in costs , not the hard of hearing itself. - Whereas there is a flat rate for these devices. About this package you have to negotiate how much will that be. That one individual but the slightly hearing impaired absolutely can choose whether they want to shop in this store or other business.
F: or abroad.
A: or abroad, which is also licensed. And then there is the so-called "lifestyle" devices cheaper. The federal government had taken a large proportion of these devices cost far less. And the hard of hearing would be preferred on the other hand, that the strong hard of hearing, in which she could really rely on it: "I get my hearing aids for free. "
savings are easiest when requested at the slightly hard of hearing no mandatory medical examination. After the medical examination costs in each case 700 francs, for about two times 20 minutes short work and that is slightly hard of hearing absolutely unnecessary. So if you calculates that half of these medical expertise is omitted, then you have already saved 20 million. Now hear this of course does not like the doctors. And the situation was so ridiculous that that doctors have resisted in the beginning with vehemence against the state procurement, which are considered to be awful. And suddenly is a complete reversal takes place because you could also noted: "Wow, now we must be careful, otherwise someone gets the idea that one could halve the expertise." This is the current situation.
F: Article 74 has so very special meaning for the disabled organizations. The article deals with the financing of private disability organizations by the disability insurance. Without these items, there would probably no disability policy that would have a say in the disabled. There would be no voice of disabled people in politics heard.
This article is now under attack from all sides. The Federal Office for Social Insurance, a study conducted to determine what is the effect of Article 74. And if you just read the study, so the result is above all that the Office has made in all the years never bothered to formulate a policy for what should be really achieved with this Article 74. Without commenting on the results of this study is even now he proposed disability insurance revision 6b that you can do there massive cuts in Article 74, not with respect to any policy, but simply through the band.
As you can see the behavior of each auditorium with respect to the Federal Office for Social Insurance and 74? What impact will this have on the political debate whether the article at all nor necessary and what is its function?
A: Yes, I see just the danger of this article. The article 74 is very valuable, as you have already defined. There would be handicapped in Switzerland hardly organizations from donations and membership payments alone could develop any meaningful activity. Since envy us so, for example, all foreign organizations for the disabled that are rarely promoted in this way. So I think you have to fight in any case, this Article 74. If it is necessary, if it were safe even then a referendum should be sought.
The thing I like the whole thing with Pro auditorium just regurgitates very angry is that strengthen this whole attitude and the payments to these large-company then precisely these forces that say: ". We do not yet support IV funds that compete against us in the quasi-parliament" so that voice I have now been heard very strong. I am secretary of the parliamentary group for the hearing impaired. And this mood is already there, that says: "So if that is the extent that the disability organizations do their own firms for public relations work, then we have to reduce the absolute, then there is too much money. I would regard as extremely dangerous and harmful to the whole disability movement.
So I think because we have to be in any case already prepared that if this is really intended in large measure shall be taken, 6b, or even legally installed, then all that we need to think if a referendum in the eye. It is of course so that the total IV in large parts of the Swiss people now wrongly has a bad reputation. So that has changed tremendously in recent years.
Q: And there was actually over the years now so respond, that you actually getting the issues that have been applied from the right-middle classes against the IV, that one has actually always handled these issues and therefore actually not always encouraged has without having worked on the positive side of it, the people also to make clear again what the IV is actually there. It has really only talking about bogus handicapped and abuse and so on. And that was the main theme. And now even the behavior of the disability insurance, which gives the Pro auditorium indirectly an order: "Give a few times for 100,000 Swiss francs from one of the most expensive advertising agencies that are there anyway." It is precisely this reaction IV, this criticism even further increased and finally the people makes it plausible why the whole IV could fall out of the same traffic.
A: That is correct. Now you have rightly said: Man has only the negative aspects of the whole social insurance sector, especially its emphasis IV. In the human population has no idea what to do all the associations for handicapped persons in voluntary work to improve the situation of people with handicaps. The few people know, because you never talk about it. The Federal Office has to my knowledge hardly ever come forward in some form to it. And of course there is a shortcoming because that many people think: "Why does the money get from the federal government, what is the" One who does not understand, has immediately that impression.
Q: If I might add there's a question. I have from our point of view produces the impression that these so-called Checks on the performance of the disability organizations, the part that is really the most important part, namely the immense volunteer work that trigger the federal funds that the Office never interested in it. I know the statistics, we actually push through more, which would almost certainly somewhere, that volunteer work is also done. But controlled really only paid work, the rest seem to care not at the Federal Office.
A: And you have probably never even thought about what that would cost now, even if the whole state does. Of course, the DI can, if poorly just run these articles change 74, or even deleted. And then just remain many tasks then the Federal Office. And that is certainly more expensive again.
Q: But then there are many points at the Federal Office.
A: There are many agencies at the Federal Office, of course, but they are much more expensive than all these thousands of people who are volunteers, that's for sure.
Q: Oke, Mr. Schmidhauser, thank you.
A: Sure, I'm happy to come.
Q: We are pleased that as we develop a common vision and fight each other. I want to thank you in the end simply, not only, but really, also like to congratulate to courage, for I think it is unique, having the courage to stand up to this point and say, "so I can no longer continue." This has indeed used for courage and you also had personal consequences. And I congratulate you. Thank you very much again.
A: You're welcome.
Q: Goodbye, Mr. Schmidhauser.
is Thomas Schmidhauser We thank for his visit, SL-TV 2010
