April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Dion

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

There are non Christians who are against homosexuality as well.

Frankly, I would wonder why any party would not screen such contentious candidates and question why that person is running for public office and perhaps what their agenda is.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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.

I wouldn't vote for him either.

[Makarov]

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.

Agreed. And if a candidate keeps their religious beliefs entirely to themselves, as they should, then we will never know whether they believe that homosexuals should be killed or that no one should wear clothes made of two different types of fabric. Fair enough. We will have nothing to complain about until (and if) that candidate is elected and starts supporting hateful and bigoted legislation. However, if a candidate publicly posts their ridiculous, hateful, bigoted beliefs on the internet, it instantly becomes fair game for an electorate trying to choose its leaders (in my view.)

[Dion]

Originally Posted by redforever

There are non Christians who are against homosexuality as well.

Frankly, I would wonder why any party would not screen such contentious candidattes and question why that person is running for public office and perhaps what their agenda is.

I was a member of an Evangelical church for a number of years and knew people who were against homosexuality. None of them wanted to dictate how they lived thier lives.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Agreed. And if a candidate keeps their religious beliefs entirely to themselves, as they should, then we will never know whether they believe that homosexuals should be killed or that no one should wear clothes made of two different types of fabric. Fair enough. We will have nothing to complain about until (and if) that candidate is elected and starts supporting hateful and bigoted legislation. However, if a candidate publicly posts their ridiculous, hateful, bigoted beliefs on the internet, it instantly becomes fair game for an electorate trying to choose its leaders (in my view.)

I highly doubt anyone could garner any support for hateful legislation.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

I was a member of an Evangelical church for a number of years and knew people who were against homosexuality. None of them wanted to dictate how they lived thier lives.

As far as you know, were those same people in favour of equal access for homosexuals to public institutions like marriage? Human rights legislation which protected homosexuals against discrimination?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

As far as you know, were those same people in favour of equal access for homosexuals to public institutions like marriage? Human rights legislation which protected homosexuals against discrimination?

That I couldn't tell you. I left the church and religion some 15 years ago and don't associate with those people. Just guessing I could see some of them being against gay marriage.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

I highly doubt anyone could garner any support for hateful legislation.

Agreed. Hateful is too strong a word. I should have simply said "discriminatory".

[photon]

Originally Posted by Dion

I was a member of an Evangelical church for a number of years and knew people who were against homosexuality. None of them wanted to dictate how they lived thier lives.

I was a member of evangelical churches for the majority of my life, and pretty much all of them wanted to dictate how homosexuals lived their lives.

But some of the churches I attended thought giving away Jack Chick tracts to schools were a good method of evangelism.

They do exist.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by photon

I was a member of evangelical churches for the majority of my life, and pretty much all of them wanted to dictate how homosexuals lived their lives.

But some of the churches I attended thought giving away Jack Chick tracts to schools were a good method of evangelism.

They do exist.

I'm sure they do and it's one of the reasons why I have no use for organised relgion.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Agreed. Hateful is too strong a word. I should have simply said "discriminatory".

I stand corrected. I would call legislating against gay marriage as being hateful. Christians and others should stop being busybodies and let gays live thier lives.

[You Need a Thneed]

There ate plenty of Christians out there who still discriminate, I'm sorry to say. However, I have no issues with homosexual couples receiving all the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples do. Again, I don't think that Christians should be pushing for the legislation of "Christian" morality.

I do think that the vast majority of the Christians, Muslims, and Jews (and perhaps others) that are running in the election are willing to set aside any personal beliefs they have. Frankly, I don't really see any desire to revisit the issue.

[kn]

I think it's important to remember that "Christian" does not automatically equate to "Evangelical Christian". The few Christians I know have no social agenda and maintain a private faith. The ones who do want to dictate morality unfortunately paint the rest of them in a bad light.

[Sr. Mints]

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?! 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.l.

Interesting thing happened to me . . . I guess a little back story is in order:

I broke my back years ago, and received great treatment back then. Fast forward ~8 years, my leg went partially numb just out of the blue, I hadn't lifted anything heavy or fallen down or anything.

I was worried, because I was told that if I ever became incontinent or couldn't use the washroom or my legs went numb, I should high-tail it to the doctor.

I phoned the neurosurgeon's office I had seen, and was told that I'd have to get a referral because it had been longer than 18 months since I'd last seen him. Thinking this was bull####, I went to the Foothills hospital the next morning at about 5:00 a.m. because I was told that was when it was least busy.

At triage, I told the nurse my story and what was happening, and the look got from her honestly led me to think she thought I was there for a handful of painkillers. I got sent to the non-emergency department in the emergency room.

Saw the doctor there, he did a quick exam, sent me for an x-ray, and when it came back, he'd said something like, "you really did a number." I asked him what the hell I was supposed to do, and he said I should try and get into the spine clinic, gave me 18 Percocets and sent me home.

Next day, I made appointment with my family doctor, he refereed me to spine clinic (which is called Caleo) and booked me for an MRI, after pestering the MRI clinic with phone calls every few days, they booked me one for nine months from then.

I said '#### this,' went went back to my family doctor and told him I wanted a private MRI, which I did the next day to the tune of $770, which I put on my Visa because I am a student with no money. A Radiologist's report was sent to my family doctor that listed a bunch of things wrong with my back, but also that my bladder was ginormous. My family doctor sent that report to my old neurosurgeon--whose office told me to bugger off--and suddenly I had an appointment in three weeks.

The whole point of my story: why would AB Health not reimburse me for this MRI, when I clearly needed it. Having waited nine months could have been disastrous for me, as I've received a ton of effective treatment in the meantime. I cancelled the MRI that was booked for me nine months later.

Had the private MRI shown that I am a whiny cry baby and that nothing was wrong with me, I think I'd be level-headed enough to accept that the money came out of my pocket.

It's interesting to me, when I asked my family doctor about the possibility of getting reimbursed, he said with a laugh, "who's going to reimburse you?" My point was that I did not get the second MRI, it would be as though the government was still only paying for one MRI.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by 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?

Yeah that was a really weird comment, I could understand if there were people making comments about Klein's personality, but to get defensive about critiquing his policies and saying that they are off limits and that they can only focus on his legacy is really quite offputting.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by SebC

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.

Hehe, I just googled "Tom Flanagan sucks", and I found this. It's a decent read.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

The whole point of my story: why would AB Health not reimburse me for this MRI, when I clearly needed it. Having waited nine months could have been disastrous for me, as I've received a ton of effective treatment in the meantime. I cancelled the MRI that was booked for me nine months later.

I was in the same boat with a different condition and also paid for an MRI. How many times would you have went back to the hospital or other medical facility in that 9 months while waiting for the MRI?

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

The whole point of my story: why would AB Health not reimburse me for this MRI, when I clearly needed it. Having waited nine months could have been disastrous for me, as I've received a ton of effective treatment in the meantime. I cancelled the MRI that was booked for me nine months later.

Had the private MRI shown that I am a whiny cry baby and that nothing was wrong with me, I think I'd be level-headed enough to accept that the money came out of my pocket.

It's interesting to me, when I asked my family doctor about the possibility of getting reimbursed, he said with a laugh, "who's going to reimburse you?" My point was that I did not get the second MRI, it would be as though the government was still only paying for one MRI.

Because reimbursing would be against the Canada Health Act. One of the 5 principles of the Health Act is Accessibility, every injured persons needs to have reasonable access to medically necessary services without financial or other barriers. You using that money allowed you to "jump the line" and if the Alberta Government reimbursed you, it would be restricting accessibility to others who couldn't or wouldn't pay that 770 dollars.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

It's interesting to me, when I asked my family doctor about the possibility of getting reimbursed, he said with a laugh, "who's going to reimburse you?" My point was that I did not get the second MRI, it would be as though the government was still only paying for one MRI.

You can claim the MRI as a medical expense on your tax return.

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

Because reimbursing would be against the Canada Health Act. One of the 5 principles of the Health Act is Accessibility, every injured persons needs to have reasonable access to medically necessary services without financial or other barriers. You using that money allowed you to "jump the line" and if the Alberta Government reimbursed you, it would be restricting accessibility to others who couldn't or wouldn't pay that 770 dollars.

I've never read the act and have no idea what it entails, so thanks.

Waiting nine months for a diagnostic image before treatment is not reasonable to me. The health act needs a revision.