By: I. K.
Tamara Vonta is one of the most vulgar MPs of this term. She became known as the chair of the parliamentary Committee on Culture, where she conducted sessions as if the debate were taking place in a village pub rather than in the temple of Slovenian democracy. She is also a strong supporter of anything that smells of state control. In this spirit, she fights for the complete nationalisation of public healthcare. She fiercely opposes so‑called “dual practitioners,” meaning doctors who work in both the private and public sectors. But attention! In the past, accusations surfaced that her own husband is a “dual practitioner.” She denied this on 24ur, but the facts contradict her.
On 24ur, where she herself once worked in her younger years, Vonta claimed that her husband, an ophthalmologist (eye‑disease specialist), is not a dual practitioner but a “concessionaire,” meaning he performs services in a private clinic that are paid for by the national health insurance fund (ZZZS).
But the data say otherwise. On her husband’s clinic website, it clearly states that he also performs examinations for self‑paying patients, complete with a published price list.
They write:
“The head of the practice is Boštjan Meh, MD, specialist ophthalmologist. The Ministry of Health granted us a concession in 2005 for outpatient eye examinations and in 2007 for eye surgeries, the most common being cataract surgery. Okulistika Meh d.o.o., as the concession holder, was established in 2005 for the purpose of treating eye diseases.
As concession holders, we perform examinations and surgeries via the health insurance card and with a referral from the chosen doctor, and by agreement also for self‑paying patients.”
This is practically a textbook example of the so‑called “dual practice,” as defined by the far‑left coalition.
They even attached the price list, for anyone who finds the waiting times, caused by Golob’s government, too long.
Of course, no one on the right has a problem with doctors also working privately, as long as they properly fulfil their public duties.
The Freedom Movement’s hypocrisy
The concept of “dual practice,” as imagined by the ideological line Keber–Jenull–Freedom Movement, is that a doctor who participates in public healthcare provision also performs private services. This is not considered problematic anywhere in the world. Every individual has the right to practise privately, even if they hold a state concession. Imagine if, for example, a chimney‑sweeping service with a state concession were forbidden from cleaning chimneys privately.
It would be completely unconstitutional, and the Freedom Movement knows this. That is why they wrap their fear‑mongering about dual practice in the claim that concessionaires are sending their patients to their own private clinics (of course, for self‑pay). This does not happen systematically, as the prime minister claims. But how would the Freedom Movement react if, say, Janez Janša’s wife owned a private clinic similar to Vonta’s husband’s, and her website stated: “… and by agreement also for self‑paying patients”?
We all know exactly what would happen.
