By Plenary Sessions: Tanel Kiik

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and disputatious, employing semi-philosophical and rhetorical questions to call the government's actions into question. The speaker combines logical arguments (labor shortages, procedural errors) with an emotional and ironic dismissal of the opponent's position, referring to the opposing side's justification as "powerful logic."

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, combative, and demanding, directly calling into question the prime minister's priorities and logic. Strong ideological opposition is employed (the wealthy vs. healthcare), along with rhetorical questions, to highlight the injustice of the government's actions and its complete lack of priorities. The tone is urgent, referencing long-simmering crises and a total funding meltdown.

The rhetorical style is serious and urgent, highlighting genuine concern over the healthcare crisis and demanding action from the government instead of mere words. The speaker employs both logical arguments (such as budget deficits and detailed analyses) and a moral appeal concerning social inequality. The speaker criticizes the minister for getting bogged down in the details, insisting on an answer to the fundamental question of how to secure additional funding, and quotes Kaja Kallas to underscore the importance of budget priorities.