That would be my preference, but there is a political choice to be made here. I am however not involved in the political domain. If we wanted to spread the cost over the entire group, then a rate of 0,41% would be my personal choice. However, I cannot tell you that this would be the choice of an expert: it is a political choice. In order to fund these benefits, the rate would have to be 0.90%. To my mind, both these choices are defensible. In any event, there is no need to allow these premiums to increase indefinitely, over time. I see no logic in that. If we were to come to that, it would no longer be a matter of political choice. We would be talking about a rather abusive system.
On December 10th, 2009. See this statement in context.