MPs willing to give up health insurance but warn of higher Aasandha costs

Several members of Parliament have said they are willing to give up their state-funded health insurance benefits, but argued that doing so could increase government expenditure if their medical treatment were instead covered under the Aasandha national health insurance scheme.

The remarks were made during a parliamentary debate on Monday over an electronic petition signed by more than 7,000 people calling for the abolition of health insurance provided to MPs at state expense.

MPs who participated in the debate said they had no objection to giving up benefits that were not available to the general public. However, several argued that the petition did not accurately reflect how the parliamentary health insurance scheme operates.

Opening the debate, People's National Congress (PNC) Parliamentary Group Leader and Inguraidhoo MP Ibrahim Falah said he supported the principle that MPs should not receive benefits unavailable to other Maldivians.

"I believe the person who prepared this petition has not properly examined how the health insurance scheme for members of Parliament operates. Nevertheless, I strongly support the principle that no individual member of Parliament should receive anything that is not available to Maldivian citizens," Falah said.

He urged petitioners to examine the existing arrangements before submitting proposals that could create divisions between MPs and the public.

Falah said the government pays an annual premium of MVR 24,000 per MP to an insurance company, rather than directly funding each member's medical expenses.

According to Falah, the insurance package provides coverage of up to MVR 1.35 million per member annually, but treatment costs within that limit are borne by the insurer rather than paid directly from the state budget.

He contrasted this with the Aasandha scheme, under which medical expenses are funded by the government.

Falah argued that if an MP required treatment costing MVR 6 million under Aasandha, the government would have to bear that expenditure, whereas the existing insurance arrangement limits the government's direct annual payment to the insurance premium.

He said the petitioners should understand the distinction between an insurance premium and the amount of medical coverage available under a policy.

Falah also criticised what he described as attempts to create divisions between the public and parliamentarians by presenting the insurance scheme as an expensive benefit.

Nevertheless, he said he was prepared to support the removal of the insurance benefit if that was what the public wanted.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Kendhoo, Mauroof Zakir, also said parliamentarians should not receive privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens.

He questioned why members of the public would oppose benefits received by MPs if those benefits were genuinely in the public interest.

"I do not believe any citizen would oppose something that benefits another citizen if it is genuinely beneficial. What people should be demanding is that the same benefits available to others should also be made available to them," Mauroof said.

He argued that MPs should work towards ensuring that all Maldivians had equal access to the benefits provided to elected representatives.

However, Mauroof said public dissatisfaction with parliamentary privileges reflected wider concerns about the conduct of the current Parliament.

He accused Parliament of taking decisions that undermined public confidence and restricted constitutional rights instead of addressing the needs of citizens.

He also referred to concerns about the state of the country's healthcare system, saying Parliament should focus on addressing those issues.

"If Parliament provides solutions to these problems, people will not be pursuing members of Parliament over their benefits," he said.

Mauroof proposed that an independent audit firm should be tasked with reviewing and determining parliamentary salaries and benefits, rather than leaving MPs to decide their own entitlements.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament and PNC MP for Eydhafushi, Ahmed Saleem, also defended the existing insurance arrangement, saying MPs frequently assist constituents seeking medical treatment.

He said parliamentarians regularly visit hospitals and help members of the public obtain healthcare services.

Saleem maintained that covering MPs through an insurance policy was less expensive for the government than meeting their medical expenses directly through Aasandha.

He also criticised those who campaign against parliamentary benefits before entering Parliament but later call for higher salaries and allowances after being elected.

Saleem said he was willing to give up his insurance, salary and other benefits if necessary.

"Even if they remove my insurance, I have no problem with that. I am prepared for it. Even if I am not paid a salary or allowances, I will come to Parliament for free," he said.

Saleem reiterated that he did not personally require the insurance benefit and would accept its removal.

Two other MPs who spoke during Monday's debate expressed similar views.

The petition, which attracted more than 7,000 signatures, calls for an end to the government-funded health insurance scheme for members of Parliament. No decision on the petition was reported during the debate.