ArmInfo.The parliamentary majority "Civil Contract" on December 7 refused to add to the agenda of the plenary session the additions to the law "On military service and the status of a serviceman", proposed by MP of the "I have honor" faction Taguhi Tovmasyan. The author proposes, within the framework of state-guaranteed medical care and services, priority and free of charge examination, examination of the state of health and treatment of military personnel.
Earlier, on November 30, the NA Standing Committee on Defense and Security considered the bill in the first reading. The government, represented by head of the Ministry of Health, Anahit Avanesyan, gave a negative conclusion. Avanesyan noted that, in accordance with the requirements of the April 2018 government decree, military medical examination of military personnel is carried out by a departmental hospital and central military medical commissions, and such examination is not carried out in civilian medical institutions. Military personnel, as well as their family members, receive high-quality medical care at the expense of the RA state budget, and also benefit from the medical direction of the social package. The executive branch proposed to leave the corresponding article of the current law unchanged. Co- rapporteur, member of the commission and MP from the Civil Contract Vilen Gabrielyan, in turn, noted that the project violates the principle of equal treatment of patients. As a result, the initiative did not receive a positive opinion from the relevant commission.
Today, after Taguhi Tovmasyan insisted on the reasonableness of including the issue on the agenda of the plenary session and implementing the initiative she proposed, former Minister of Health of the Republic of Armenia, now MP from the Civil Contract Arsen Torosyan stated that the project is purely populist, since back in 2019, by an appropriate decision of the government, servicemen receive all the need for medical care when necessary and on an emergency basis.
No matter how hard the counterparts, the ruling party and the parliamentary opposition, tried to convince each other, as a result, each of them remained unconvinced, and the bill did not receive the required number of votes necessary for its discussion in the framework of the plenary session of the National Assembly.