Session Profile: Riina Solman
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
2025-10-07
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the government's state budget proposal concerning the Health Insurance Fund, emphasizing the danger posed by a persistent large deficit and the lack of a responsible solution. The approach is policy- and results-based, focusing on fiscal responsibility and the fulfillment of the Fund's statutory duties. The speaker demands that Parliament refrain from irresponsibly approving a deficit budget without clear justification.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of the Health Insurance Fund’s budget position, citing specific deficit figures for 2026 (–104.9 million), 2027, and 2028. Their expertise also covers the analysis of public procurements and administrative expenses, including precise knowledge of the cost of the recruitment service for the Chairman of the Board (€35,000 excluding VAT). Furthermore, the text highlights the discrepancy between the Fund's statutory duty (providing health insurance services) and the focus on health outcomes emphasized in the job description.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is formal, critical, and demanding, particularly when addressing the Minister of Finance. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and concrete data (budget figures, procurement costs) and requires substantive answers from the Minister. The tone is concerned and cautionary, emphasizing the dangers inherent in the deficit budget and the necessity of a long-term solution.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active during the plenary session, having submitted multiple substantive and detailed questions on a single day regarding the state budget and the Health Insurance Fund. This indicates active participation in parliamentary oversight mechanisms and budget debates.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is directed towards the Minister of Finance and the government’s budget policy, alongside the priorities of the Health Insurance Fund’s leadership. The critique is strictly policy-based, focusing on fiscal irresponsibility and the inefficient spending of public money. The speaker questions how Parliament can responsibly approve a deficit budget.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Insufficient information
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is entirely at the national level, addressing the State Budget Law, as well as the financial situation and management of the Health Insurance Fund.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The speaker emphasizes fiscal discipline and accountability, strongly opposing persistent budget deficits, especially those lacking a long-term solution. Criticism is also leveled at the efficiency of public sector spending, specifically questioning the allocation of tens of thousands of euros for executive recruitment when funds for core operations are simultaneously lacking.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
This addresses the sustainability of the social sector via the Health Insurance Fund's (Tervisekassa) budget, specifically noting the effect of population aging on health outcomes. The primary concern revolves around ensuring the financial provision of health insurance coverage for insured individuals.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is on the critical analysis of the State Budget Act and the budgetary position of the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa). The speaker is acting in an opposition role, demanding that Parliament take a responsible approach when approving the deficit budget and ensure the allocation of sufficient funds for the Fund to carry out its statutory duties.
3 Speeches Analyzed