Alberta budget 2009

[Jedi Ninja]

Has anyone brought up the property tax increase that comes in this budget... Sounds like it will be almost 7% more on your property tax bill, which is more than the City of Calgary added to their portion? That would be at least $200 for me. Or is it 7% more just on the education portion of the tax bill?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

We'd probably need them.

Maybe time to plan for some missile installations around Ft. Mac as well.

We could than charge NATO, the US, and the Canadian Federal Government $1.00/mile that they have to fly should an intercept come about, and $5.00/mile that they're in combat time.

Win, win for everyone involved.

That way Lockheed will build a factory in Alberta to build all our F-22s, and we'll all get rich from the royalties.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

The Alberta government spends more per capita than Ontario, BC, NS, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Also, I'm not lending support to any particular political party, but we have seen the Federal Liberals lead many surpluses under Paul Martin, and the Saskatchewan NDP run surpluses under Calvert and Romanow. In Saskatchewan's case, it was actually the hayseed conservatives of Grant Devine that pretty much bankrupted the province and left a huge wave of corruption scandles in their wake.

And I say all this as someone who is a lifelong conservative voter.

1) Unless the Province wants to stiff the cities to balance the books, Paul Martin's example isn't a good analogy. Spending ramped up per capita inflation-adjusted throughout the Liberal's reign in office

2) Sask is a terrible example too because they reigned in their deficit with a combination of transfers from other provinces and tax hikes. This isn't exactly a great spending restraint story.

3) I'm in no way defending the Conservative government. I think that they have to go. It's just that if given only three choices, the Liberals and the NDP should not be looked at as parties interested in reigning in the deficit by means of cutting spending.

We also tend to think that Surplus always = Good. Surpluses are almost just as bad as deficits if achieved by means of overtaxation, it means that the government is in control of funds it should never have had in the first place thereby restricting the money supply available in the province to be used more efficiently in the economy to grow the economy.

The NDP reigns in Sask are a perfect example of the government choking the economy to meet their spending desires. If the NDP had managed the eocnomy so wonderfully, than why did Sask only really see measurable economic growth at the very end of the commodity cycle and not through the entire upswing? The answer is because the tax system was so onerous at the time, that only when prices skyrocketed through the stratosphere at the very end of the commodity cycle did projects and economics make sense.

Alberta is the mother of all examples of surpluses despite overspending. We posted record surpluses that could have been even bigger surpluses (put towards the sustainability fund) had we not spent the money foolishly, or we could have had even lower taxes with similar levels of surpluses.

When it comes to economic health of a region it's all about increasing the size of the entire pie, not simply managing the government take to outstrip spending.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by FireFly

My favorite part is that they're restructuring health care (again or still?) so that it costs more... Now, I'm pretty sure the point of restructuring was because costs are out of control, so why they up the budget again is beyond me. You cut out a whole whack of things that are covered now, and yet it's still going up. Is it just me or does the math on that seem funny?

Originally Posted by Dion

Also makes one wonder why they got rid of health care premiums in the first place.

1. Supposely in the long run, it'll save Albertans money. It's just a pain to get it all set up right now.

The vision is to have Albertans have the right service, at the right place, at the right time." They want to divert unnecessary trips to the ER, get more people enrolled with PCNs/Family doctors, develop more clinics that allow nurse practioners to perfrom more duties thus freeing up doctors for more serious matters. Primary Care Networks (PCNs) are really popular right now in government, since it allows people to see a doctor as the first point of contact to health services. The doctor can then integrate that patient with specialist and health professionals in the network to better manage that patients need from a holistic point of view

Long term care got an increase to develop a more unified strategy to have more seniors at home (home care). Long term care beds are a fundamental weakness right now, and is some cases the main cause of delays in hospitals. There is simply no place to go whenever a person with chronic comes in again.

Speaking of chronic disease, healthy living type of programs got an increase because of this problem. Chronic disease is a significant drain on the system. Diabetes, chronic heart disease, COPD...etc patients come in repeatly into the health system. PCNs help, but prevention is needed to reduce the amount of people with these conditions from entering the health system. Explains why the increase in smoking tax and funds for healthy living directly to kids K-grade 6

Change is needed because of the increase demand for health services that will only get worse as the populations continues to age. Health was taking in 14 billion of the budget last year, and that's not sustainable, and the system has to become more efficient. This doesn't mean going into a private health system, but rather getting more out of what we have .

Anyways, back to firefly's point, the problem with health regions before was that these changes could not occur without backlog and discussion with all the regions and their boards. (This section is my opinion, and in no ways reflects the GOA's point of view) Personally, I think as well, the Health Regions became too powerful. Calgary and Capital were spending as they pleased, or did things there own way. By being the 2 biggest regions financially, there was a growing divide of services compared to the rest of the Alberta. By centralizing, these changes could be pushed and hoping it would be better able to provide equal quality and coverage to all Albertans, not just to Edmonton and Calgary

2. (my opinion) getting rid of the premiums was a mistake. At the time of the decision, the Liberals were already announcing they would do so as well, and the Conservatives had to follow suit. The public welcomed the decision as well. However, while premiums weren't popular, they were managable and most Albertans tolerated it. However, without them now, that is a whole wack of money we could have used to spend on some other critical need and has to be made up somewhere else

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, its really not the 'liberal' name that is the problem, but the platform they present. I would 'gladly' vote Liberal if they presented a fiscally responsible, socially liberal platform.

Gladly.

So um...did the present Conservatives do that for you?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cheese

So um...did the present Conservatives do that for you?

No, and thats why I never voted for them.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Anyways, back to firefly's point, the problem with health regions before was that these changes could not occur without backlog and discussion with all the regions and their boards. (This section is my opinion, and in no ways reflects the GOA's point of view) Personally, I think as well, the Health Regions became too powerful. Calgary and Capital were spending as they pleased, or did things there own way. By being the 2 biggest regions financially, there was a growing divide of services compared to the rest of the Alberta. By centralizing, these changes could be pushed and hoping it would be better able to provide equal quality and coverage to all Albertans, not just to Edmonton and Calgary

Except they went to the regional model years ago when they couldn't provide adequate services to the various parts of Alberta, major cities or otherwise. Now they are going back to a centralized model and history will repeat itself. Heck, they are now talking about implementing health "zones" mimicking the previous health regions. The whole thing is a complete joke, it's more about getting rid of Klein's friends then it is about health care.

[Rathji]

The thing that irks me about this is that they are cutting all funding for Gender Reassignment Surgery. This is a procedure that the medical profession considers medically necessary and only costs the province $700,000 for all procedures for an entire year.

“Ignorance is fuelling the decision,” said Kris Wells, a researcher at the Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services based at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.
“This is a case of sacrificing people’s lives. … These medical transitions end up saving people’s lives. This is a community that has higher rates of suicide, depression, drug and alcohol abuse because there is so little understanding.

Full Article

If this is a money decision, then they are barking up the wrong tree because $700,000 is a drop in the bucket considering the $19 billion budget for Health Care and costs each Albertan only 19 cents a year. In fact, there is a 19 cent letter writing campaign that has been started.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by flamingreen

Except they went to the regional model years ago when they couldn't provide adequate services to the various parts of Alberta, major cities or otherwise. Now they are going back to a centralized model and history will repeat itself. Heck, they are now talking about implementing health "zones" mimicking the previous health regions. The whole thing is a complete joke, it's more about getting rid of Klein's friends then it is about health care.

And that's how governments work

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The thing that irks me about this is that they are cutting all funding for Gender Reassignment Surgery. This is a procedure that the medical profession considers medically necessary and only costs the province $700,000 for all procedures for an entire year.
Full Article

If this is a money decision, then they are barking up the wrong tree because $700,000 is a drop in the bucket considering the $19 billion budget for Health Care and costs each Albertan only 19 cents a year. In fact, there is a 19 cent letter writing campaign that has been started.

I didn't expand on it, but I was curious about this as well. Chiropractors I can see, but there are other services that could be de-listed in order to save money. I assume this was a more conservative policy decision rather than a financial one. At the same time, If you are in prison, the Feds will pay for your sex change operation if you have been properly diagnosed.

The transgendered community still remains one of the more taboo groups in society. I hope that they are able to raise awareness about this issue, since I agree that it is medically necessary in order for the people affected.
To be quite honest, I never knew we even covered it. I believe the BC government and Quebec both cover it

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

The transgendered community still remains one of the more taboo groups in society. I hope that they are able to raise awareness about this issue, since I agree that it is medically necessary in order for the people affected.
To be quite honest, I never knew we even covered it. I believe the BC government and Quebec both cover it

The article mentions that Ontario was forced to reinstate the funding their health care provided, when a class action suit was won in 2008.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Nothing to do with the "party" itself...everything to do with those in charge. This bunch is so far from conservative its embarrassing.

Klein was terrific for a majority of his time...but ever since it appears things are "the inmates running the asylum" style decision making.

Stelmach is horribly over his head.

Agreed on Stelmach, but Klein? Dude cut so much he had to spend even more repairing the damage he did with his cuts, then moved on to directly spending money to buy back the votes he would have lost. I have to believe we'd be ahead had we simply maintained a steady level of spending throughout his term.

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think you seriously overestimate the average Albertan voter. I think in rural Alberta in particular, there is a very strong socalist streak. People got greedy watching the oilpatch and its employees raking in the cash, and decided they wanted someone to stick it to the man at precisely the wrong time.

This is exactly what happened. You'd think with the rest of the country going after Alberta's oil money that we'd have a provincial government that's sticking up for the oilpatch. Instead we've got a provincial government that sees the industry in the exact same way as the rest of the country: something that they can rape and pillage and take money from to subsidize everyone else.

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Absolutely...if the campaigns could successfully rally the urban vote.

That's the only reason Stelmach won the leadership race. Rural and Northern Alberta were so finished with city slickers and Calgary boys, that they hit the polls in masses. Heck, these communities had the school bus drivers doing runs on election night. I'm pretty sure more people voted in Lac la Biche than some Calgary ridings. Lac La freakin Biche.

What's also brutal is that rural ridings have smaller populations than urban ones. If Calgary and Edmonton each have 1/3 of Alberta's population, they should each get 1/3 of its MLAs. Then you'd see a provincial government with an urban-focussed agenda.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

1) Unless the Province wants to stiff the cities to balance the books, Paul Martin's example isn't a good analogy. Spending ramped up per capita inflation-adjusted throughout the Liberal's reign in office

That is true for all OECD nations during the period, the only difference is that only Canada managed to reduce government spending growth compared to the growth of GDP.

[transplant99]

Agreed on Stelmach, but Klein? Dude cut so much he had to spend even more repairing the damage he did with his cuts, then moved on to directly spending money to buy back the votes he would have lost. I have to believe we'd be ahead had we simply maintained a steady level of spending throughout his term.

When Klein took over, Alberta was in HORRIBLE shape fiscally...he said he would eliminate that deficit and he did...in spades... and took the province well into surplus territory. So no, he didnt "spend more" than he needed at the beginning...and remember he was elected on the platform that he actually delivered. The final years were not as good as it became apparent that both his success and power took over his decision making.

I still think you would be hard pressed to find a better Premier in Alberta and possibly Canadas history.

[Azure]

Well, oil went over $52/bbl.....which is another good sign for Alberta.

Hopefully it keeps going up.