Hello I propose that the government abolishes the payment of basic health insurance for the PAST. Case in point: The person was insured until October 2012 and the insurance was paid by the Municipality of Ljubljana (MOL). The person was informed that after that date he/she should arrange basic insurance as the MOL would no longer pay for it. The person missed the deadline for the insurance and was therefore not covered by basic insurance for 3 months. After 3 months, the person received a notification from the Health Insurance Fund of Slovenia (ZZZS) that, as a Slovenian citizen, he/she had to arrange basic insurance. So she arranged it through the CSD and then the ZZZS and had to pay for the past 3 months as a self-payer. - It means that the person had to pay for the vacuum in the room or the idea of having basic insurance in the past. So to be insured at any cost, even for the past, a past that offers nothing in return. I am sorry, but such a law is contrary to common sense. Paying to have a person insured retrospectively is utter nonsense. So I suggest to the Government that such a nonsensical law should be abolished or that the matter should be dealt with in a different way. Another suggestion within the proposal is that people who have fallen foul of such a nonsensical law should be reimbursed for the costs they have incurred as a result of paying retrospectively, or having to pay for insurance for the past. It is therefore irrelevant in the whole matter whether a person is actually insured or not, otherwise if a person did not pay for basic insurance, the system would be that someone else would pay for it and the uninsured person would have to reimburse the costs incurred to the payer or to the person who paid for the insurance for them. This means, for example, that the MOL could bear the cost of the individual's insurance for as long as he/she did not make other arrangements, and the non-payer would reimburse the MOL for the costs incurred. However, not having paid for the basic insurance at the time of non-insurance does NOT mean that the person has paid for insurance for the past, for the past, for the vacuum. It obviously means that it is only a question of whether or not the HSSF got the insurance funds, not primarily whether the person is really insured. I am of the opinion that a different mechanism is needed to deal with the matter if the individual is not insured on a basic basis, rather than bearing the cost of insurance for the past. Namely, if a person was forced to go to a doctor within 3 months of not having basic insurance, they would have to pay the full cost of their service. So the individual has to pay for the past insurance whose services he/she did not benefit from, and the Health Insurance Fund does not pay for the past insurance services that the individual could have benefited from. Thus, the current law is unfair to the Slovenian citizen and the consumer and should be changed. Every citizen in Slovenia is legally obliged to have basic insurance and I assume that the law applies to the PRESENT, not to the past! Because it makes no sense in common sense to pay insurance for the past, does it. Among others, the ZZZS itself agrees on this (telephone conversation) and refers to the fact that they did not pass such a law and that they are just doing their job. lp