Parliament has issued a denial. It does not pay for and does not provide private health insurance, neither for MPs nor for staff of the parliamentary service. The statement calls the reports "an inaccurate and manipulative presentation of the facts".

The explanation goes like this: the procedure the media reports refer to concerns systematic, that is preventive, health check-ups. That is a legal obligation of the employer, not additional insurance. Under Article 22, paragraph 1 of the Law on Occupational Safety and Health, an employer must provide health check-ups for employees at least every 24 months.

Legally, that holds. The law does require it, and it requires it of every employer in the public and the private sector. Parliament did not invent a privilege - it carried out an obligation.

So why did the story catch on at all?

Because the difference between "private insurance" and "a systematic check-up paid from the budget" is a difference a lawyer understands, not the person waiting for an appointment at a public health centre. For them there is only one question: how fast does my appointment come up, and how fast does theirs.

The denial does not answer that question, and that is the question that produced the article. The institution explains what it is not, and says nothing about what implementation actually looks like.

The same Article 22 applies to everyone. The question worth asking is not whether Parliament respects it - it is how many employers in this country respect it, and what happens to those who do not. If the answer is "nothing", then the law Parliament cites in its denial is a law Parliament itself passed and nobody enforces outside Parliament.

The denial asks media outlets to publish it and correct their reporting. That is a legitimate request. But an institution demanding accuracy in reporting about itself owes the same accuracy in its own work - in the places where there is no press office standing guard.