These days there are as many tax payers without children as there are with.
If your attitude is I pay taxes so I think some of that can fund my kids private education...I guess you're okay with childless people not paying any taxes toward education too?
If that's how it plays out a low birthrate will only fall if everyone with children has to send them to some form of private school. Which is great if you're a union worker or other CP profession making 120 to 300k a year with a spouse earning that. White trash tax bracket like me...w might have to sell our kids to the rich if we want a useless highschool education for them.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
So now that we are going to talk about teachers and schools in the other thread... I thought this new line of thinking from the landlocked provinces was interesting:
]
We are talking about recycling in the other thread so the teacher talk was moved here
But to your point under the constitution fisheries and transportation in Canadian waters are federal jurisdictions whereas resource revenue has been designated as provincial under the equalization formulas.
The near shore (high to low tide) is run by the BC province but the navigable waters are Federal.
So more accurate would be to say BC doesn’t control the shipping lanes.
Oh, I see. All of the conservative posters fled back to this thread instead of hashing out the public v. private school conversation in the strike thread.
The short answer to most of you guys is:
Funding private schools with public dollars is wrong - full stop - and harms the public system.
Charter schools were a cool idea when they launched in 1994 but they failed to achieve the results and have basically become "private schools that get more money than the other private schools by pretending to be public".
Both Private and Charter schools are leeches on the public system.
"There is only one pot of money for schools in Alberta. When money is diverted to private and charter schools, it leaves public schools in a funding shortfall."
When you have 1 system and all of the kids of the rich and powerful are put into that system along with everyone else, a funny thing happens: The rich people support the public system better and agree to invest more in supporting all kids instead of just their kids.
Most importantly, with that funding all going to one system, you can then design the system in more complex and advanced ways to enable tracks for different types of learning so that all kids are supported. That solves the problem that most of you cry about but does so in a way where no kid is left behind. This is better than your solution of a tiered education system, which is the ultimate form of trying to give more to one kid by taking away from many others.
Despite the definitive tone you are taking, these are nothing more than your opinions.
The most rich and powerful will still get their private schools, middle class and upper middle class students will be hurt the most or kids with different learning needs or classroom structures.
Look at Ontario, you seeing a lot of equity in education out there?
Despite the definitive tone you are taking, these are nothing more than your opinions.
The most rich and powerful will still get their private schools, middle class and upper middle class students will be hurt the most or kids with different learning needs or classroom structures.
Look at Ontario, you seeing a lot of equity in education out there?
Actually, it is not just my opinions. I have been quoting articles from the ATA and an expert that did a study on Alberta's charter schools, as well as information from the GoA website.
What you are posting is an opinion with no backup to it. I'm bringing something more to the conversation by using facts and experts to help inform my decision. If you want to argue the points, I am game to engage, but if you want to be dismissive of what I am bringing to the conversation then I am happy to call you a troll, a UCP shill, a corporate shill, and be done with it.
Also, I am okay with private schools existing but they need to be 100% private with no funding from the government while also being regulated by the government to ensure that they are delivering education that aligns with Alberta's education standards (or significantly better). (This is really like any other private corporate entity where they have to stand on their own financial feet and meet the government's regulations.)
As for Ontario - no, I am not interested in that as an example. Go researched Finland's education system. They have a very interesting take on how to handle private schools.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
As for Ontario - no, I am not interested in that as an example. Go researched Finland's education system. They have a very interesting take on how to handle private schools.
Since you suggested it, I briefly looked at the system in Finland and it would be great to hear your opinions on their interesting take on private schools but it doesn't seem like something you would want to support. Their private schools are publicly funded and non profit, operate under a government curriculum and provide specialized programs, don't charge tuition and have limited enrollment (honestly sounds very similar to our charter schools.) Do you promote the Finnish approach to private schools? https://www.aacrao.org/edge/emergent...ted-in-finland
Both could easily be an option, but fear mongering prevents any attempt.
The private option negatively impacts the public option. So it becomes a question of is it beneficial to make things worse for the overwhelming majority to improve things for a small minority of constituents or do we try and improve the system for everyone. There’s ways you could make a hybrid system work with a reduced impact on the public side but trusting this government to implement that would be a fool’s errand IMO.
Like claiming people wait 18 months to get a knee replacement?
Wait, are you suggesting it's faster than that? I understand that in one case, someone had theirs done sooner, but this was not even close to my wife's experience. First, they take every angle to try to talk you out of the surgery in the first place. Then you get referred to the surgeon, and the appointment there is somewhere around the 15-18 month mark. Then, you have to wait until the surgery.
I understand that this is "elective" because it's not life-threatening or things of that nature. But the impact on people's quality of life cannot be debated either. And this is the issue with that system today. We have these elective surgeries that people want done, because the problems they're having are an enormous impact on their lives, despite that surgery being "optional". I put those words in quotes because it is questionable how optional those surgeries are for the individual. You can live without the knee replacement, you just happen to be in your forties and can't walk down a flight of stairs easily or a slight incline. So, you're not dying from this, and I suppose that is why it's elective.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Or we can continue to cast the issue as a binary choice: Status quo (7th out of 10) vs American-style health care (10th out of 10).
Canada ranks 4th on outcomes, almost equal to 3rd place New Zealand, from that list. Not 7th, which is the overall ranking.
The number one ranked country (Australia) also has the second lowest access to care next to the US, so you have to actually have read the very short report to understand the context behind those numbers, in which case overall rankings become somewhat irrelevant (especially when there are massive gaps between some rankings).
While you may want to paint any mention of US-style health care as an attempt to make it a binary choice, the reality is that they are Canada’s closest neighbour and the country many conservatives desire to model their own country after, including Alberta’s UCP, so the responses are going to skew toward disputing the merits of that example. But you’ll note that posters like GGG already acknowledged this not being a binary choice by suggesting better outcomes come be achieved in a public system.
You’re welcome to add to the conversation by citing some specific changes Canada could make that would bring the specific measure above in line with where you think they should be. Equity is one of Canada’s lowest ranked areas, how do you think they could improve equity?
But I would absolutely not say that they are 4th out of 10 or 7th out of 10, because the US is almost certainly not actually 10th in any of these categories (tbf there are probably some other countries around/above Canada, too)
Also, I think they are weighing each of these 5 categories equally? I skimmed the methodology and didn't see anything claiming otherwise. I'd say Care Process and Outcomes (the two categories where we're 4th) are probably the most important. Access and equity are also very important, but I suspect geography and other factors (e.g. indigenous population) influence this heavily, considering Australia is 9th.
But I would absolutely not say that they are 4th out of 10 or 7th out of 10, because the US is almost certainly not actually 10th in any of these categories (tbf there are probably some other countries around/above Canada, too)
Also, I think they are weighing each of these 5 categories equally? I skimmed the methodology and didn't see anything claiming otherwise. I'd say Care Process and Outcomes (the two categories where we're 4th) are probably the most important. Access and equity are also very important, but I suspect geography and other factors (e.g. indigenous population) influence this heavily, considering Australia is 9th.
Why not? These are ranked relative to each other, not out of 10. 10th just means the worst out of the 10 countries. The US having the worst (or near worst)access to care, admin efficiency, equity, and health outcomes out of these 10 countries all make sense.
Eby coming out swinging against Smith and her fake pipeline project.
11min of time I won't get back in my life listening to Eby, I'll pass.
I wonder when he'll figure out that you have to make money somehow to pay for all the lovely social initiatives he has...and that lovely debt he managed to accumulate in record time.
A pipeline to the coast would...shockingly, create more tax revenue. But I guess that's too hard for him to figure out.
The Following User Says Thank You to simmer2 For This Useful Post:
11min of time I won't get back in my life listening to Eby, I'll pass.
I wonder when he'll figure out that you have to make money somehow to pay for all the lovely social initiatives he has...and that lovely debt he managed to accumulate in record time.
A pipeline to the coast would...shockingly, create more tax revenue. But I guess that's too hard for him to figure out.
Maybe you should watch it in an attempt at forming an educated opinion, even if that opinion remains critical of Eby.
Crazy stuff, I know. Knowledge is yucky.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Wait, are you suggesting it's faster than that? I understand that in one case, someone had theirs done sooner, but this was not even close to my wife's experience. First, they take every angle to try to talk you out of the surgery in the first place. Then you get referred to the surgeon, and the appointment there is somewhere around the 15-18 month mark. Then, you have to wait until the surgery.
I understand that this is "elective" because it's not life-threatening or things of that nature. But the impact on people's quality of life cannot be debated either. And this is the issue with that system today. We have these elective surgeries that people want done, because the problems they're having are an enormous impact on their lives, despite that surgery being "optional". I put those words in quotes because it is questionable how optional those surgeries are for the individual. You can live without the knee replacement, you just happen to be in your forties and can't walk down a flight of stairs easily or a slight incline. So, you're not dying from this, and I suppose that is why it's elective.
As I mentioned previously, my elderly uncle went from doctor's recommendation to knee replacement surgery within 3 months.
My elderly mother had to beg and plead with various doctor's for 8 years to finally get the life altering shoulder surgery she desperately needed.
I think the lesson we've all learned today is that anecdotes aren't hard evidence of any single truth. The healthcare system could use a massive overhaul to improve on deliverables, but further privatization isn't going to make solutions more accessible for the average person.
Far more people are capable of seeing this nuance and are currently advocating for it, despite poster's like Cliff claiming we're stomping our feet and kowtowing to some binary choice.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
11min of time I won't get back in my life listening to Eby, I'll pass.
I wonder when he'll figure out that you have to make money somehow to pay for all the lovely social initiatives he has...and that lovely debt he managed to accumulate in record time.
A pipeline to the coast would...shockingly, create more tax revenue. But I guess that's too hard for him to figure out.
Maybe take a listen. This non-existent project is putting LNG Canada Phase 2 and other LNG projects at risk, you know projects that are well down the road already, with approvals and environmental assessments in place.
Danielle and cronies trying to circumvent established process, a real shocker.
Last edited by Flacker; 10-09-2025 at 11:01 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Flacker For This Useful Post:
