Gorenak rejects complaints about the abolition of public health and calls for a more transparent campaign

Former Interior Minister Vinko Gorenak has rejected allegations that Slovenia’s upcoming referendum concerns the abolition of public healthcare. Speaking ahead of the December 6 vote, Gorenak accused opposition figures of misleading voters with exaggerated claims. He specifically targeted Nika Kovač, director of the Institute March 8, stating that her campaign against the law constitutes deception. Gorenak argued that the proposed legislation does not dismantle the public system but instead expands contractual cooperation with private providers to reduce waiting times for patients. The central issue of the referendum is the Law on Intervention Measures for the Development of Slovenia. Voters will decide whether to accept this law, which covers multiple sectors but has drawn intense scrutiny regarding its impact on health services. The National Assembly adopted a decree setting the voting date and the specific referendum question on October 16. While the government maintains that the law aims to improve efficiency through additional capacities, critics argue it risks diverting public funds away from state institutions toward private entities. Gorenak, who currently serves as secretary in the Prime Minister’s cabinet, emphasized that collaboration with private contractors is standard practice across Western Europe. According to him, such arrangements allow public hospitals to utilize extra resources for patient care without eliminating public structures. He stated that nothing would change fundamentally in the public health sector, asserting that the system would remain intact while benefiting from improved accessibility. Conversely, opponents led by Kovač warn that redirecting tax revenues to private operators undermines the integrity of the public system. Kovač has announced an intensive campaign focused on protecting public healthcare and preventing the transfer of fiscal resources to the private sector. The debate has intensified over the accuracy of political messaging during recent referendums. Gorenak criticized previous campaigns for using sensationalist slogans that did not reflect the actual content of the laws. He cited examples from past votes, including claims about a "political police," the closure of Radio Television Slovenia, and forced labor for social welfare recipients. Gorenak described these instances as effective but false slogans used to mobilize voters through fear. He applied similar criticism to the current discourse, suggesting that warnings about the loss of public healthcare serve as a tool for political manipulation rather than a factual assessment of the legislative changes. Beyond the substance of the health policy, a secondary dispute has emerged regarding the financing of political campaigns. Gorenak called for stricter rules concerning foreign funding of organizations participating in electoral and referendum activities. He argued that the financial backgrounds of non-governmental organizations require transparency comparable to that demanded of political parties. Currently, organizers of referendum campaigns are obligated to ensure the legality of their implementation and financing. They must open special transaction accounts and report on collected and spent funds. However, Gorenak noted that regular organizational operations and specific campaign finances are treated separately. He contended that allowing individuals like Kovač, whom he alleges receives substantial foreign funding, to engage in domestic political persuasion creates an uneven playing field. He advocated for a ban on foreign financing for anyone conducting election propaganda, arguing that while political parties are prohibited from receiving such funds, independent actors operating within the political sphere are not subject to the same restrictions. Amidst this political friction, a separate controversy involving Kovač gained attention following the release of a photograph showing her traveling in business class. The image was published by media outlets associated with the ruling party after she returned from the United Nations week in New York. Reports estimated the cost of such a ticket at approximately 4,816 euros. Kovač responded via social media, explaining that her work is internationally recognized, leading event organizers to purchase business class tickets for her participation in lectures and conferences. She clarified that her flight back from New York shared the same business class cabin as Prime Minister Janez Janša, his wife, and his entourage. Kovač pointed out that the Prime Minister's travel expenses were paid with taxpayer money, whereas hers were not. Kovač suggested that the anonymous photographer might have been someone close to the Prime Minister, implying a motive behind the leak. She stated that upon realizing who else was on the plane, she maintained respectful conduct and respected their privacy. She expressed surprise that anyone would secretly photograph a 33-year-old woman and turn it into a media story, describing such behavior as symptomatic and pathetic, particularly if performed by high-ranking state officials. She further noted that since winning the previous referendum against the alleged "political police," the authoritarian right has sought to tarnish her reputation. This incident added another layer to the polarized atmosphere surrounding the December vote, where disputes over policy, funding transparency, and personal conduct intersect. The medical association in Slovenia explained that the law explicitly allows public health institutes to contract with private providers organized as sole proprietors, companies, or foundations. Such cooperation is conditional on economic viability for the public institute and the existence of a legal reason for outsourcing services. The association characterized the changes as an expansion of contractual possibilities rather than a structural overhaul. For patients, the primary concern remains whether broader access to available capacities will lead to faster examinations or procedures. Gorenak bases his support on this potential improvement in accessibility, while opponents prioritize concerns over the expenditure of public funds and the status of public institutes. As the December 6 deadline approaches, the conflict extends beyond health policy to include broader questions about the rules governing political persuasion and the transparency of those paying for it.