April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

The Canada Health Act makes it illegal to overbill, so no matter where someone will get the service it will cost the same to taxpayers. To do otherwise would be circumventing federal law.

I think the profit comes in for the extras - nicer room, better meals, optional diagnostic scans, etc. You don't need to buy any of those things, just like you don't need to buy the fancy coffin, but of you can afford it you likely will.

The profit also comes, yes, from efficiency. You set up a practice to do one type of surgery and you can optimize - have only the equipment you need, balance all the steps of the process so you can have just in time diagnostics, etc. So yes, you can move more people though faster and that's a good thing.

But it's also called cherry-picking. Private facilities take more of the routine high volume tasks, leaving a wide range of more complex, less predictable tasks to the public hospitals. This makes the hospitals' job on average harder, so current issues are exacerbated. Any now doctors can choose between a comfy, profitable boutique practice or an increasingly stressed out public system. Guess what the good ones choose? So now the public hospitals fall further behind.

Meanwhile the data proves that private surgeries are more effective so pressure grows to expand their role, relax the restrictions, etc. The more private practice with optional services the more role there is for insurance companies to offer coverage for the optional services, which expand, etc. This is what many of us see an a slippery slope.

I've heard lots of talk about good European models but have honestly heard little to no real analysis of those options. I'd be happy to be re-educated.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The kiss of death for the Wildrose?

“I think I can safely say that the majority of members of Parliament inside the Alberta caucus, that I’m aware of, are leaning Wildrose,” said the MP for Calgary West, according to Monday’s edition of the Hill Times, an Ottawa-based weekly political and public policy newspaper. He told the Hill Times he has two signs on his lawn supporting Wildrose candidates

An Anders endorsement might not be a good thing.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Wi...641/story.html

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The kiss of death for the Wildrose?

An Anders endorsement might not be a good thing.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Wi...641/story.html

I bet he sleeps through the election

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

I don't think this will really change people's minds that much. It's not like anyone voting Liberal or NDP are going to suddenly jump on board the WRP train. Anyone leaning to either of those parties probably jumped ship during Klein's tenure. This election has essentially split the base of the PCs into two camps - The Lougheed loyalists/Red Tories are sticking with Redford and the Klein camp/Blue Tories have already jumped to the WRP. The second Dani Bucks came out as a policy and the PCs started questioning the policy you saw the main jump.

I don't think Klein's family pledging allegiance to the WildRose is really going to sway people away from the current PCs to the WildRose, to be frank that already happened at the beginning of the election.

If anything this may help the current PCs swing some small votes from the Liberals and NDP.

It really hasn't, actually. Klein peaked at 62% at the polss in 2004, but other than that, Klein (and Stelmach) drew 45-50% in the previous elections back to 1993. Polls right now have the two parties at 80% combined. What's really happened is that the PC shift to the left and the Sherman's shift to the far left has decimated the Liberal base.

The problem with counting on strategic voting at this point is that anyone likely to switch from Liberal to PC already has. The PC's aren't going to win that way. They need to regain right wing support if they expect to win this election. And unless "not my daddy's party"'s negative attack ads work, they aren't terribly likely to do that.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I think the profit comes in for the extras - nicer room, better meals, optional diagnostic scans, etc. You don't need to buy any of those things, just like you don't need to buy the fancy coffin, but of you can afford it you likely will.

The profit also comes, yes, from efficiency. You set up a practice to do one type of surgery and you can optimize - have only the equipment you need, balance all the steps of the process so you can have just in time diagnostics, etc. So yes, you can move more people though faster and that's a good thing.

But it's also called cherry-picking. Private facilities take more of the routine high volume tasks, leaving a wide range of more complex, less predictable tasks to the public hospitals. This makes the hospitals' job on average harder, so current issues are exacerbated. Any now doctors can choose between a comfy, profitable boutique practice or an increasingly stressed out public system. Guess what the good ones choose? So now the public hospitals fall further behind.

Yes, but the province isn't allowed to pick up the bill for those extras, so from the original question, taxpayers won't be paying more if someone uses one of these services to keep wait times down, those bills will come out of private insurance or out of pocket payments.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Personally, I think those that still believe in church shouldn't be allowed to run for public office at any level.

Same as those that believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. There should be "logic" test that can be applied prior to allowing the crazies to run.

I can't believe this is serious.

[DrJ]

Jumping in this thread really late but there is absolutely no way that the Wild Rose can live up to their "wait time" guarantees. They will be unable to provide the care in the time that they say they will. The two categories that stick out to me are knee/hip replacement and MRI for diagnostic imaging. First, there is not enough OR time to get all of these done. Throw as much money at it as you want. Simply not going to happen.

The current amount of MRI scans is already in excess...now you want to fund a bunch of them to go to private clinics?! The reason why you aren't getting your MRI within the month is probably because you don't need one in the month! So the Wild Rose is going to pump every back pain patient through an MRI just to have them follow up with a surgeon to say that they can't be operated on. Great use of money for sure.

The PC platform is not clear to me...140 "Family Care Clinics" for greater access and every Albertan to have a family physician? Not going to happen either. Also, their promise of a "Fast-trac" emerg area? Yah, that exists already. Not sure what they are promising.

I'm not really sure who I'm voting for. Based on health care alone, I'm voting PC as I think their plan is more viable and beneficial.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by DrJ

The PC platform is not clear to me...140 "Family Care Clinics" for greater access and every Albertan to have a family physician? Not going to happen either. Also, their promise of a "Fast-trac" emerg area? Yah, that exists already. Not sure what they are promising.

I'm not really sure who I'm voting for. Based on health care alone, I'm voting PC as I think their plan is more viable and beneficial.

The "Family Care Clinics" are absolutely ridiculous, and getting the ire of the majority of health professionals in Alberta. The main reason it's so ridiculous is that in the past 8 years physicians and other primary care workers have been developing primary care networks, which basically provide the same service. So instead of just funding these networks properly, which is what they should do, they decide to build 140 new Family Care Clinics to directly compete with these primary care networks. It makes no sense at all, and one of the main reasons why I'm so hesitant to vote for PC this election. I really don't know who I'm going to vote for yet.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It really hasn't, actually. Klein peaked at 62% at the polss in 2004, but other than that, Klein (and Stelmach) drew 45-50% in the previous elections back to 1993. Polls right now have the two parties at 80% combined. What's really happened is that the PC shift to the left and the Sherman's shift to the far left has decimated the Liberal base.

I agree with pretty much all of this. The "civil war" in the PC ranks isn't necessarily a 50%-50% split between the PCs and WRP. It's also a far more complicated mixture of people choosing sides at the moment. I think you're dead on with the current PCs acquiring a good chunk of the Liberals base and at least at the beginning of the election the WRP acquired a portion of people who didn't vote in the last election and/or finally found a more conservative option to the PCs.

There's still a large chunk of undecideds out there and it'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Dion

His religous views are his, and him alone has no power to legislate any change against the gay population. I don't find that scary.

Redford is trying to get you and others to believe that this guy is going to try and legislate against gays. That said I saw no proof in his blog that says he's going to do exactly that. If you have proof, please post it.

His mistake was expressing his religous views in a public blog and is also an utter fool for doing so. It brought harm to the party he is running for and I suspect that in private he will lose his bond - and rightfully so.

I don't care if he is only representing his own personal view. I do not want anyone who is that extreme in their thinking, to be making any decisions period, on behalf of Albertans.

[EddyBeers]

I honestly do not understand what Love is talking about in that Baird article, Klein is sick so you cannot criticize him? You would think that Love would have something positive to say about Klein, instead he says leave him alone? You worked with the guy Rod, if you are that offended why don't you stand up for him?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by redforever

I don't care if he is only representing his own personal view. I do not want anyone who is that extreme in their thinking, to be making any decisions period, on behalf of Albertans.

The Bible is against homosexuality. Should all Christians be forced to state thier views before running for MLA?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by DrJ

The current amount of MRI scans is already in excess...now you want to fund a bunch of them to go to private clinics?

As long as it's done for comparable (or possibly less) dollars I don't care if the MRI gets done in a private clinic. You can pay for an MRI and get it done in a few days for less than $1000. You'd think that if Alberta Health would fill up the clinic's spare capacity they could get a major volume discount.

[kn]

Just doing a little more research and discovered that the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta already have guidelines pertaining to conscience rights. Very scary indeed...

(1) A physician must communicate clearly and promptly about any treatments or procedures the physician chooses not to provide because of his or her moral or religious beliefs.

(2) A physician must not withhold information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs.

(3) A physician must not promote their own moral or religious beliefs when interacting with patients.

(4) When moral or religious beliefs prevent a physician from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical or surgical treatment or service, that physician must ensure that the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered timely access to another physician or resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.

http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/Libraries/Res_...ed_Version.pdf

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Dion

The Bible is against homosexuality. Should all Christians be forced to state thier views before running for MLA?

The Gospels are silent on homosexuality, that is the book that most Christians believe is a direct reference to JC. The anti-homosexuality thing is a bigot thing for Christians based on one or two writings by Saul. A little different for Jewish people though.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by darklord700

A general going to battle telling the other general that if I lost, please spare my life and let me be your servant, OK.

This attitude is one of the things I dislike about Flannagan-backed parties.

Every party has some good ideas. If the federal conservatives would tone down the partisanship/constant use of closure/contempt of parliament in not providing proper information, we might actually see some of them implemented.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

The Bible is against homosexuality.

Indeed it is. This is great stuff:

Originally Posted by bible

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Here's some more words of wisdom from good old Leviticus:

Originally Posted by bible

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Originally Posted by Dion

Should all Christians be forced to state thier views before running for MLA?

Frankly, I don't want to vote for this Leviticus guy. He sounds like a complete ####### to me. Therefore, I personally wouldn't mind knowing if a candidate actually believes in the above-noted Leviticus pearls of wisdom.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

The New Testament is silent on homosexuality, that is the book that most Christians believe in. The anti-homosexuality thing is a bigot thing for Christians, because it is not in the New Testament. A little different for Jewish people though.

It's a bigot thing for me also. Still if A Christian is running for MLA or some other political office we won't know thier views unless we require them to state thier beliefs.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Dion

It's a bigot thing for me also. Still if A Christian is running for MLA or some other political office we won't know thier views unless we require them to state thier beliefs.

I forgot in my first post that there is some stuff from Saul in Romans and Corinthians that makes vague reference to homosexuality, which is an embarrassing thing for a product of the Catholic school system with their strong stand against homosexuality to forget. I suppose those could be the two verses that could be viewed as anti-gay for Christians. There is a rich irony that they believe that a guy who hung out 24/7 with 12 other single dudes in the prime of their procreating years with nary a lady around except an alleged prostitute is the guy who was preaching against homosexuality and prostitution.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Personally, I think those that still believe in church shouldn't be allowed to run for public office at any level.

Same as those that believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. There should be "logic" test that can be applied prior to allowing the crazies to run.

Even I don't agree with this. If you don't see the difference between Allan Hunsperger and Naheed Nenshi, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. (I kid, a little.)