Alberta 2007 Budget

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by return to the red

Interesting Idea, for a short period of time anyhow. People are always drawn to the more lucrative money and as Firefly suggested there is no gaurantee that this economy will be here umpteen years down the road

The problem is....there is a limited supply of healthcare professionals and simply increasing the amount of money they make will not solve anything.....as the next province or state will just offer more, so atleast my idea gets people into the healthcare field instead of just relocating resources.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Oooohhhh I see. Cutting taxes is short term thinking....but having year after year multiple percentage increases in government spending is better and more appropriate to cushion the bust cycle. I get it now......instead of having to increase taxes to what 400% which would be what 30, 40% provincial income tax (which you wouldn't have to do, increase it back to the 10% mark) we should cut the public service by 400% to rain in spending and prevent a deficit. Lets hire all these new medical personel and then fire them when the economy goes to .

That's not what I'm saying either. Let's fix the problems we've created, and go from there. A fair amount of money in this budget is going towards repairing the damage done to roads and schools and other infrastructure problems this province has. Once those are complete, that money will also go into the surplus. Throwing money at doctors won't help fix the system, or can't you see the hypocrisy in your own statements?

Until they figure out HOW to fix the systemic issues with health care and education, all they can do is throw money at them. You can't expect a budget to cure the health system. What would you rather they do? Just stop spending and let the system figure it out???

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The problem is....there is a limited supply of healthcare professionals and simply increasing the amount of money they make will not solve anything.....as the next province or state will just offer more, so atleast my idea gets people into the healthcare field instead of just relocating resources.

By throwing money at them....

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FireFly

That's not what I'm saying either. Let's fix the problems we've created, and go from there. A fair amount of money in this budget is going towards repairing the damage done to roads and schools and other infrastructure problems this province has. Once those are complete, that money will also go into the surplus. Throwing money at doctors won't help fix the system, or can't you see the hypocrisy in your own statements?

Until they figure out HOW to fix the systemic issues with health care and education, all they can do is throw money at them. You can't expect a budget to cure the health system. What would you rather they do? Just stop spending and let the system figure it out???

Things need to be repaired, for sure, no question....but it needs to be done in a structured manner, not throwing billions and billions of dollars at the problem when the cost of fixing these problems is the highest it has ever been. The roads in Alberta are some of the best in Canada and they are not in an emergency state of repair. Yes, some roads need to be completed such as the ring road in Calgary, but I atribute this to lack of fore planning. When I was in Vegas they had areas that were completly created in the suburbs, such as schools, roads, and sewers before even one house was built. We do the exact opposite. We build all the houses and then try and catch up on the rest of the infrastructure. Lets build the projects that are absolutly NEEDED now and save the money for capital projects when the economy hits the dirt. It would not only create jobs it would be much, much cheaper for the tax payer. Yes, we do not know when that will happen, but throwing billions of dollars into capital projects at a time when there is already a shortage of workers and supplies does nothing more than increase the final project by 30%.

As for the health care, I never said throw money at it. So not sure where you are getting that from. The government needs to do a lot more inovative ideas such as focusing on physical health and fitness starting at grade 1 all the way to grade 12. Rewarding people and families for healthy lifestyles. I for one would love to see the price of cigerettes go up 5 dollars a carton every year. Doing more to tackle trans fats and other unhealthy addatives. We can do much more to improve our healthcare system by lookin out side the box, instead of throwing money at the problem. I think a great step in reducing wait times and the ability to see a doctor was allowing pharmacists to refill prescriptions without having to see a doctor. It is thing likes this that we need to do.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Things need to be repaired, for sure, no question....but it needs to be done in a structured manner, not throwing billions and billions of dollars at the problem when the cost of fixing these problems is the highest it has ever been. The roads in Alberta are some of the best in Canada and they are not in an emergency state of repair. Yes, some roads need to be completed such as the ring road in Calgary, but I atribute this to lack of fore planning. When I was in Vegas they had areas that were completly created in the suburbs, such as schools, roads, and sewers before even one house was built. We do the exact opposite. We build all the houses and then try and catch up on the rest of the infrastructure. Lets build the projects that are absolutly NEEDED now and save the money for capital projects when the economy hits the dirt. It would not only create jobs it would be much, much cheaper for the tax payer. Yes, we do not know when that will happen, but throwing billions of dollars into capital projects at a time when there is already a shortage of workers and supplies does nothing more than increase the final project by 30%.

Most of the infrastructure problems you're talking about are created at the city level. Everything is catch up right now, everything is NEEDED now. Problem is that when the economy busts, we'll finally be caught up with infrastructure... so you can look at that like it's planning ahead...

As for the health care, I never said throw money at it. So not sure where you are getting that from. The government needs to do a lot more inovative ideas such as focusing on physical health and fitness starting at grade 1 all the way to grade 12. Rewarding people and families for healthy lifestyles. I for one would love to see the price of cigerettes go up 5 dollars a carton every year. Doing more to tackle trans fats and other unhealthy addatives. We can do much more to improve our healthcare system by lookin out side the box, instead of throwing money at the problem. I think a great step in reducing wait times and the ability to see a doctor was allowing pharmacists to refill prescriptions without having to see a doctor. It is thing likes this that we need to do.

Your idea to pay for the education of doctors in return for their agreeing to work here for a certain period of time was another idea to throw money at the issue. It wouldn't solve anything, it wouldn't save any money. You still have to pay the doctors when they actually work, they certainly aren't going to do it for free.

You're right, we can do more innovative things to improve healthcare. We already are. The government has many programs in place to help people lead healthy lives for life. However, you can't allow pharmacists to refill prescriptions without seeing a doctor first. Firstly, a pharmacists is not a doctor and doesn't know necessarily if a patient would need a refill. Secondly, most doctors prescribe medicine that should help a person until the end of their sickness, or until they want to see you again. For example, birth control prescriptions are for one year, as a female needs a physical annually. If your prescription hasn't cured your illness, then chances are it's treating the wrong thing and you need to see your doctor again anyways! People would potentially be taking the wrong medications for life if you just allow pharmacists to refill them.

Again though, my point in all this is that UNTIL the problem is fixed, throwing money at it is the only thing they can do. More doctors to lower wait times = more money. Reworking the system requires careful planning and studying before it's actually done, which also requires money. You can't change it overnight, and until then, you have to pay for it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Most of the infrastructure problems you're talking about are created at the city level. Everything is catch up right now, everything is NEEDED now. Problem is that when the economy busts, we'll finally be caught up with infrastructure... so you can look at that like it's planning ahead...

We all know it is mostly cities that require the infrastructure, not sure why you are bring that up. The responsibility falls on both the provincial and municipal governments. Both have done a pis poor job in planning. If you think we will all be caught up when we hit a bust, you are sadly mistaken. It will be years until we are caught up, the problem is, we will have no money left to pay when we do hit a bust......I'm really not sure what the heck you are arguing here....I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by firefly

Your idea to pay for the education of doctors in return for their agreeing to work here for a certain period of time was another idea to throw money at the issue. It wouldn't solve anything, it wouldn't save any money. You still have to pay the doctors when they actually work, they certainly aren't going to do it for free.

WRONG....the biggest problem in our healthcare system is the lack of people. Increasing seats within the universities and providing free education to those who are willing to work for 10 years in Alberta will solve a lot of problems. Never did I say that we are going to have these doctors work for free, you pay them the going rate, no more no less. Provide good funding for research and development and we will keep quality doctors. It is a much better idea than sticking with the status quo with which I assume is your idea, since you haven't given any idea at all other than argue.

Originally Posted by firefly

You're right, we can do more innovative things to improve healthcare. We already are. The government has many programs in place to help people lead healthy lives for life.

Oh they do..do they? So many programs to keep us healthy eh. The fact that physical education has taken a back burner to primary and secondary education proves this eh.....nice. You tell me there are MANY programs, yet you fail to mention even one. Then, you arguement out of know where diverts to pharmacists. Again, I think you like to argue just to see your words on the screen.

Originally Posted by firefly

However, you can't allow pharmacists to refill prescriptions without seeing a doctor first.

And I said the contrary where?

Originally Posted by firefly

Firstly, a pharmacists is not a doctor

I have now been set straight

Originally Posted by firefly

Secondly, most doctors prescribe medicine that should help a person until the end of their sickness, or until they want to see you again.

That is the key word....they want to see you as much as possible so they can collect their fee for seeing a patient. You obviously do not reguire long term medication or frequent refills to a prescription or you would realize that it is not even as close to as simple as what you are stating.

Originally Posted by firefly

For example, birth control prescriptions are for one year, as a female needs a physical annually. If your prescription hasn't cured your illness, then chances are it's treating the wrong thing and you need to see your doctor again anyways! People would potentially be taking the wrong medications for life if you just allow pharmacists to refill them.

I am not trying to be a dick here but can you keep your arguements in a logical order instead of switching from one topic to another at random....again, just from this statement, you really do not know what you are talking about. Not that I am a doctor or work in the medical field, but I have several family memebers with cronic illnesses that require many trips to the doctor, and many of them are required just to refill a prescription. Having to drive down to the doctors office, wait in line for usually an hour or more, just to have him write another prescirption that took 2 minutes to do.

Originally Posted by firefly

Again though, my point in all this is that UNTIL the problem is fixed, throwing money at it is the only thing they can do.

Nice....throw money at something that we all know doesn't work properly.....wow.

More doctors to lower wait times = more money. Reworking the system requires careful planning and studying before it's actually done, which also requires money. You can't change it overnight, and until then, you have to pay for it.

And here is where the short term think is.....the long term effect would reduce the shortage of doctors and reduce the cost of the system.....but having said everything I just said......the health care system is not the REAL problem....it is us....the people that use it and abuse it.....the people that do not make health choices, the people that run to the emegerency room for a hang nail.....

But go ahead, keep arguing with me....all I said was maybe...just maybe we deserve a tax reduction since we have had...how many billion dollar surpluses in a row????? I didn't even say we had to reduce the income tax rate....as simple as removing the regressive health care premium.....but no matter.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

We all know it is mostly cities that require the infrastructure, not sure why you are bring that up. The responsibility falls on both the provincial and municipal governments. Both have done a pis poor job in planning. If you think we will all be caught up when we hit a bust, you are sadly mistaken. It will be years until we are caught up, the problem is, we will have no money left to pay when we do hit a bust......I'm really not sure what the heck you are arguing here....I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yeah, that's it. I love to argue with you.

My point was that by the time we hit a bust (years from now) the infrastructure will be complete (also years from now). When we hit a bust, we will need no NEW infrastructure because people will be leaving. They go where the money goes. Why do you need bigger roads then when there are fewer people on them?

WRONG....the biggest problem in our healthcare system is the lack of people. Increasing seats within the universities and providing free education to those who are willing to work for 10 years in Alberta will solve a lot of problems. Never did I say that we are going to have these doctors work for free, you pay them the going rate, no more no less. Provide good funding for research and development and we will keep quality doctors. It is a much better idea than sticking with the status quo with which I assume is your idea, since you haven't given any idea at all other than argue.

Why do you suppose we don't have people? Cause we have no money to pay them. Why do you suppose that is? Because we spend all our money on other stuff, like paperwork. You have to fix the SYSTEM. When you fix the system so you have more money for doctors, you get more doctors. See? But again you resort to thinly veiled insults. I've already given an idea for getting more doctors... accredit the ones who come here from other countries more quickly. You must've missed that part.

Oh they do..do they? So many programs to keep us healthy eh. The fact that physical education has taken a back burner to primary and secondary education proves this eh.....nice. You tell me there are MANY programs, yet you fail to mention even one. Then, you arguement out of know where diverts to pharmacists. Again, I think you like to argue just to see your words on the screen.

You brought up pharamcists, not me. So no, I didn't bring it up out of nowhere.

http://www.services.gov.ab.ca/cps/rd...t=357&audience=

Here you go. A list of some of the programs developed by our Alberta government. This does not include those developed in conjunction with the federal government. Things like the food guide, etc. I'm not saying they can't do more, but to say they don't do anything is dumb. You're right, physical education has taken a backburner in schools... I would also like to point out that people are not only fatter and more unhealthy, they're also dumber. I know what irritates me more. I'm okay with the government electing to smarten up the population rather than make us more fit. Smart people make money; smart people make better life choices.

And I said the contrary where?

You said it was a great step. It's not. Pharmacists are not doctors and should not be treated as such. That's not what they are educated on.

I have now been set straight

That is the key word....they want to see you as much as possible so they can collect their fee for seeing a patient. You obviously do not reguire long term medication or frequent refills to a prescription or you would realize that it is not even as close to as simple as what you are stating.

My father is on about 500 different prescriptions for various things. I know how simple/difficult it is. If the doctors were not seeing my father, they would be seeing another patient, and as such, collect THE SAME DAMN FEE! They only have so many hours in a day and can only see the same number of patients.

I am not trying to be a dick here but can you keep your arguements in a logical order instead of switching from one topic to another at random....again, just from this statement, you really do not know what you are talking about. Not that I am a doctor or work in the medical field, but I have several family memebers with cronic illnesses that require many trips to the doctor, and many of them are required just to refill a prescription. Having to drive down to the doctors office, wait in line for usually an hour or more, just to have him write another prescirption that took 2 minutes to do.

You may not be trying to be a dick, but you are being an idiot. You bring up the arguments, and then tell me you don't know where I come up with the discussion? Mhmmm.... I have a family history of colon cancer. Want to know how my latest colonoscopy went? Every time my father goes in for an appointment (and he lives an hour and a half out of town, so it puts him out much more than your family members; 3 hour trips turning into 5,) he gets checked out. That's what they do. Even if the end result is a prescription refill, they're making sure that's the one he needs. Sometimes they even change them!

Nice....throw money at something that we all know doesn't work properly.....wow.

You have serious comprehension issues. Can the system be fixed overnight? You want to throw money at it as well for a solution that's also years down the road. I didn't say they should not do anything, I said they should throw money at figuring out HOW to fix it so they don't have to keep throwing money at it.

And here is where the short term think is.....the long term effect would reduce the shortage of doctors and reduce the cost of the system.....but having said everything I just said......the health care system is not the REAL problem....it is us....the people that use it and abuse it.....the people that do not make health choices, the people that run to the emegerency room for a hang nail.....

But go ahead, keep arguing with me....all I said was maybe...just maybe we deserve a tax reduction since we have had...how many billion dollar surpluses in a row????? I didn't even say we had to reduce the income tax rate....as simple as removing the regressive health care premium.....but no matter.

You don't even comprehend where the actual issues are in the health care system. Sure, doctors. We need more. Yes. But the issues with the health care system, and more importantly the COST of the health care system, do not lie with the shortage of doctors. The shortage of doctors is one of the effects of overspending elsewhere. People going in when they don't need to is another great example of waste on the system, absolutely, and Healthlink is a FANTASTIC tool which was designed by the system to help combat that. Again though, the bigger issues stem elsewhere.

But you're right, let's remove the health care premium. We sure do deserve a tax break. What do you suppose people will buy with that extra money? Fruits and veggies?

[Azure]

Cutting taxes does help improve the economy....but with the lowest tax rate in the country, I would much rather worry about other stuff first.

Schools, Hospitals...infrastructure basically...we won't dwell on the oil forever.

Not a bad budget...who cares how much we spend? As long as it goes for reasonable things. Plus, we're still running a surplus.

I wonder what the Liberals would cut first.

[Staypuft]

I went to a presentation by Liberal MLA David Swann tonight, and he (being the Shadow Minister of Environment) was up in arms about there not being ANY money put towards climate change initiatives.

Thoughts?

Personally it would have been nice to see...but I suppose there's a billion things that need money these days.
The gov't spends the most money ever in a budget, and nobody's happy.
Ain't that politics.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Staypuft

The opposition Liberals are, as expected, not pleased.
The main argument against the budget is that there is too much spending.
Granted, they admit that if the economy stays at the level it is at, the spending will not be a problem...it only would be if the Alberta economy falls apart...but c'mon, that's not going to happen.

Other things of note are an increased post-secondary student tax credit...from $475 to $600 monthly.
Also an increase in the charitable donation tax credit up to 21% from 12%.

Aside from the paving of 2,500 kilometres of highway, there's not a whole lot of other stuff in there that will affect Joe Average.

The things the Libs fail to mention is that if there wasnt 18 bil in spending there would be a 20 Billion dollar surplus. Also, it doenst matter if there is a leaner budget next year as the 18 Bil is one time spending allocations not a multi year commitment.

If Alberta is to be the centre of the North American Oil market in 10 years, it needs this spending now to keep up with growth.

Quite frankly, the Cons have been screwing up int he past few years with not getting this crap tended, I dislike Steddie Eddie but at least he is putting dollars to pavement here.

MYK

[Agamemnon]

Haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if this has been touched upon... but I read in the Metro daily today that the Finance Minister was predicting oil royalties to drop to something like 700-900 million by 2009. It also said the government was predicting long-term reduced returns on oil royalties. I was pretty surprised by that, I didn't think we'd peaked production-wise yet, and the price seems steadily high... maybe they're predicting the ppb will drop?

[Slava]

I also haven't read the whole thread, but they are looking at a ppb of $58 for this year, not too sure after that. Its a bad budget for Calgary though; most of the money seems to go to rural areas....which is really surprising given the cabinet representation.

[Agamemnon]

Well... the crazy thing to me was that we usually get what... 7-9 billion in oil royalties, and now we're forcasting under a billion in 2 years? Hopefully they're just being ultra-conservative in their estimations...

[Slava]

I've always thought that the whole thing is smoke and mirrors. The were forecasting low oil prices for years and then coming up with huge surpluses as a result. The $58 barrell is a bit scary to me; when the price hits $50 or less are we going to be sitting in a deficit?

[Agamemnon]

I think the point of a lot of these 'one-time' expenditures are to prevent sustained expenditures from the budget so that these expenses don't have to be 'cut' in bad times, they just stop providing the 'extra' funding to these departments. In some ways its better to do it this way as it doesn't commit the government to spend more than it has in any given year. The bad thing is it means unstable funding for some essential institutions.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... the crazy thing to me was that we usually get what... 7-9 billion in oil royalties, and now we're forcasting under a billion in 2 years? Hopefully they're just being ultra-conservative in their estimations...

Non renewable resource revenues are expected to fall from 14.3 billion to 7.8 billion in 09-10.

Royalties from convention crude production are pegged to fall below 1 billion...maybe thats what you heard.

Where we're screwed (eventually) is the biggest part of royalties comes from gas, by a lot. The end of the line for that gravy train is approaching fast - maybe 5 years.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by fotze

Gas is going to disappear in 5 years?

Is he/she stating gas disappearing in 5 years, or the high royalities/oil prices/etc (or whatever, I'm not in the oil industry) could decrease significantly say within the next 5 years?

I read it as the latter, not the former.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by fotze

Gas is going to disappear in 5 years?

Dunno about that, just that the most profitable gas we make most of our royalty money off is going to decline. 5-10 years is what I seem to hear most often for the royalties to take a big hit. Or that's what's become fixed in my head anyway.

All conversational stuff though, so maybe I'm just listening to the doom and gloom crowd.