By Plenary Sessions: Helmen Kütt

The speaker implicitly contrasts themselves with those who have characterized the bill as an obligation, seeking to refute assertions that it constitutes a compulsory measure. Specific opponents or groups are not named; rather, the argument is directed at correcting the incorrect interpretation of the bill's substance.

No direct opposition or criticism of political opponents is present. Rather, the criticism is leveled at the previous system, where the burden of general care services rested too heavily on relatives and pensioners, and where local governments approached the determination of the co-payment (or self-contribution) very differently.

The criticism is primarily aimed at local municipalities that leave too little of the pension for the personal expenses of the elderly living in care homes, citing the practice of retaining up to 95% of their income. Furthermore, concerns are raised regarding the government’s austerity policy concerning the Ministry of Social Affairs budget, as this is considered an underfunded sector.