Session Profile: Tanel Kiik

Submits a motion of no confidence against the Minister of Social Affairs, but refuses to support it due to arguments based on pseudo-medicine. The minister is criticized for insufficient healthcare funding and the delay of the Tallinn Hospital project, while simultaneously being given credit for supporting evidence-based medicine.

Demonstrates in-depth knowledge of issues in both the healthcare and social sectors, referencing specific reforms and their impacts. Shows expertise in the area of care reform and the integration of services.

The speaker employs diplomatic yet resolute rhetoric, combining courteous addresses ("Respected," "Honorable Minister") with critical assessments of the government's performance. The style is argumentative and highly detailed, relying on specific facts and examples concerning healthcare issues. Emotional appeals are balanced by logical arguments, particularly highlighting the problems of patient waiting lists and out-of-pocket costs. The speaker utilizes conditional support and a cautionary tone, promising to back a future vote of no confidence if their demands are not met.

Three questions for the Minister of Social Affairs. A critical stance regarding the minister's performance, but support on issues of evidence-based medicine.

They criticized the Minister of Social Affairs over issues of healthcare financing and the integration of social services, while offering conditional support. They warned against implementing reforms forcefully without reaching an agreement with the target groups.

Demonstrates a balanced approach, supporting the minister in the defense of evidence-based medicine while simultaneously offering constructive criticism regarding healthcare funding issues. It proposes concrete steps and gives the minister’s work an "advance payment" (or initial credit/vote of confidence).

Insufficient data.

Insufficient data.

Participates in the debate on the motion of no confidence against the Minister of Social Affairs, supporting evidence-based medicine. He/She criticizes the proliferation of quackery and demands increased funding for healthcare.

The main legislative priorities center on healthcare funding, demanding the allocation of additional resources to the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa) to shorten treatment waiting lists and reduce patient out-of-pocket costs. It supports evidence-based medicine and opposes the promotion of pseudo-medicine and anti-vaccination sentiment. It demands state involvement in the construction of the Tallinn Hospital, stressing that healthcare provision is the responsibility of the state, not local government. Furthermore, it criticizes the rapid implementation of the social and healthcare services integration reform without consulting target groups, calling for a slower, more inclusive approach.