Alberta budget news

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by droopydrew19

I am employed at an urgent care facility. They still cost the system $700+ per visit. While the walk in across the street is 1/3 of that.

People don't seem to understand what urgent care is. That is part of the problem. That is why they need to be assessed by someone to show them where to go.

There are tons of health care dollars wasted daily by patients in the health care system. And tons of staffing issues that lead to Nurses making mandatory double time pay etc. They system needs an overhaul. It is sick.

As a paramedic in the system, we have been pushing forever to do alternative destinations for people to get the care they need. We do it a bit below board right now because we are trying to make the system work, but make no mistake the drive to keep patients going to emergency is 100 percent physician driven. The term 'you call we haul' isn't far off, as the expectation by physicians is every person that calls 911 gets transported to a hospital, regardless of the complaint. They are fee for service as well, and they have no interest diverting that income. Once they remove that incentive I am positive you'd see more support for diverting patients or referring patients.... This is a huge push from us right now..... Dare to dream

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by droopydrew19

I am employed at an urgent care facility. They still cost the system $700+ per visit. While the walk in across the street is 1/3 of that.

People don't seem to understand what urgent care is. That is part of the problem. That is why they need to be assessed by someone to show them where to go.

There are tons of health care dollars wasted daily by patients in the health care system. And tons of staffing issues that lead to Nurses making mandatory double time pay etc. They system needs an overhaul. It is sick.

I agree on those points, I would have thought that an urgent care facility would have a lower price point per person because they don't take a lot of things that the acute care centres take (anyone on spinal precautions). In Edmonton the East Edmonton Health Centre, which houses mental health, immunizations and an urgent care centre routinely gets 20-30 people an evening and is underutilized.

Do you have a breakdown for price point per patient - does it factor in average costs of DI, Lab Tests, Building costs, Staffing? I can't see how someone coming to the ER with a norovirus costs $700... in terms of staffing/building costs, that is a cost that is already a sunk cost, that would be getting paid regardless of whether the person goes into the ER or not, there wouldn't be any diagnostic imaging or major lab tests (in all likelihood)... I understand that the costs associated with a serious medical incident would be higher. While I agree that keeping the less urgent people out of the ER makes sense, especially from a wait time perspective, I can't see how it saves a bundle of cash.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Ralph's Alberta advantage (tm) was to have resource revenues carry most of the bills... So corps and people didn't have to.

Remember when he gave away a billion dollars in ralph bucks? Or when he gave natural gas rebates to Albertans... Including the ones in jail?

In hindsight, these acts don't seem so fiscally responsible.

Actually, Ralph used most of the resource revenues to pay for previous overspending and wasteful governments who accumulated massive debts on top of using all the resource revenues for program spending (Sounds familiar? It should).

In hindsight, it was extremely responsible to pay off the debts and allow future revenues to be used for something other than debt servicing.

It's incredibly unfortunate that since Ralph left us a legacy of no debt and billions in savings that the PC's have taken us right back to where we started before his tenure as premier with even more wasteful spending and debt financing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Actually, Ralph used most of the resource revenues to pay for previous overspending and wasteful governments who accumulated massive debts on top of using all the resource revenues for program spending (Sounds familiar? It should).

In hindsight, it was extremely responsible to pay off the debts and allow future revenues to be used for something other than debt servicing.

It's incredibly unfortunate that since Ralph left us a legacy of no debt and billions in savings that the PC's have taken us right back to where we started before his tenure as premier with even more wasteful spending and debt financing.

Was it responsible to pay off all the debt and then decrease taxes so that we were reliant on resource revenue as our sole funding as well? That seems like an enormous mistake in hindsight.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Slava

Was it responsible to pay off all the debt and then decrease taxes so that we were reliant on resource revenue as our sole funding as well? That seems like an enormous mistake in hindsight.

It was a mistake only because the government cut back on its revenue but not its willingness to spend.

The government had a grand old time pleasing everyone at the same time. Look we're running surpluses. Aren't we fiscally responsible. Look we're spending everywhere. Aren't we progressive. Yay us.

The party had to end.

Correcting it can't only look at the revenue side though. There is no amount of money on the planet big enough to satisfy spending desires.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Was it responsible to pay off all the debt and then decrease taxes so that we were reliant on resource revenue as our sole funding as well? That seems like an enormous mistake in hindsight.

I would have been just as happy to see them pay off the debt and then direct resource revenue into the Heritage Fund. Where I think they went really wrong was when they stopped putting money into the Heritage fund and switched it to the Sustainability fund which was very easy to withdraw from. If they hadn't, we would have been having this conversation 5 years ago when the started paying bills from the Sustainability fund. All it did was buy them time. (and possibly an election or two.)

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

Was it responsible to pay off all the debt and then decrease taxes so that we were reliant on resource revenue as our sole funding as well? That seems like an enormous mistake in hindsight.

No the responsible thing was saving the excess resource revenue in the sustainability fund, which reached over 16 Billion. Of course, in the last 3 years the current goverment has spent it all, which can't be helped.

Also, resource revenues this year are forecasted to be higher than just about every year in the past, including many years when significant savings were enacted by the government.

Basically, the only reason Redford has been able to overspend this long is from the responsible savings done in the Klein years.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Aleks

As a paramedic in the system, we have been pushing forever to do alternative destinations for people to get the care they need. We do it a bit below board right now because we are trying to make the system work, but make no mistake the drive to keep patients going to emergency is 100 percent physician driven. The term 'you call we haul' isn't far off, as the expectation by physicians is every person that calls 911 gets transported to a hospital, regardless of the complaint. They are fee for service as well, and they have no interest diverting that income. Once they remove that incentive I am positive you'd see more support for diverting patients or referring patients.... This is a huge push from us right now..... Dare to dream

My sister is also a paramedic, and if I understand correctly she is already fulfilling this role from time to time in certain rural hospitals.

Makes complete sense to me.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I would have been just as happy to see them pay off the debt and then direct resource revenue into the Heritage Fund. Where I think they went really wrong was when they stopped putting money into the Heritage fund and switched it to the Sustainability fund which was very easy to withdraw from. If they hadn't, we would have been having this conversation 5 years ago when the started paying bills from the Sustainability fund. All it did was buy them time. (and possibly an election or two.)

Tough call though. The sustainability fund was a "rainy day" kind of account. Its not easy to dispute that we did indeed have a rainy day here! The issue is that with the decreased tax revenue that rainy day was exacerbated.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

Tough call though. The sustainability fund was a "rainy day" kind of account. Its not easy to dispute that we did indeed have a rainy day here! The issue is that with the decreased tax revenue that rainy day was exacerbated.

Really? The budget forecasted revenue from non renewable resources of 13.4 billion dollars. That would be the second highest amount of non renewable resource revenue in Alberta's history.

Is it your position that "Slightly less than the most money we've ever collected, and more than the second best year in Alberta's history" qualifies as a rainy day?

Source: Page 52 of this report http://www.finance.alberta.ca/public...an-revenue.pdf

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Really? The budget forecasted revenue from non renewable resources of 13.4 billion dollars. That would be the second highest amount of non renewable resource revenue in Alberta's history.

Is it your position that "Slightly less than the most money we've ever collected, and more than the second best year in Alberta's history" qualifies as a rainy day?

Source: Page 52 of this report http://www.finance.alberta.ca/public...an-revenue.pdf

I was talking about 2008-2009?

I actually just read the Wildrose plan (I can't recall the official title) and they make some good points. (Hope you were sitting down for that). I'm not sure how the math works, because they still have comments about the "possibly billions" in savings from some of their actions, but there are some good points as well.

There is a certain naivete about it though. For example when they talk about the defined benefit vs. defined contribution pension plans. I happen to agree that this move should be made, but its just not that simple. If I were a union leader or negotiator there is almost nothing that would persuade me to advise my members to willingly make that move! I have no idea what other turmoil a move like this would cause either. How many people who work for the government now would bail and not go back as soon as the pension plans and such are gone and your wages are frozen for a couple of years? (How many people would stay at a company that did this?)

I also note that there are some pretty deep cuts that are outlined here. While its hard because I think that the PC's are off-track, I also think that our current education and healthcare has a lot of room for improvement. I'm not convinced that slashing their budgets, delaying new clinics and schools will help improve things there either.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Was it responsible to pay off all the debt and then decrease taxes so that we were reliant on resource revenue as our sole funding as well? That seems like an enormous mistake in hindsight.

That's laughable. With those low taxes Alberta collect more taxes per person than almost any other jurisdiction in Canada.

The reason we are reliant on resource revenue is because our spending is out of control!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

That's laughable. With those low taxes Alberta collect more taxes per person than almost any other jurisdiction in Canada.

The reason we are reliant on resource revenue is because our spending is out of control!

I see that number being bandied about this week, but I have no idea how they get to it? Do you have that info?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

I was talking about 2008-2009?

I actually just read the Wildrose plan (I can't recall the official title) and they make some good points. (Hope you were sitting down for that). I'm not sure how the math works, because they still have comments about the "possibly billions" in savings from some of their actions, but there are some good points as well.

There is a certain naivete about it though. For example when they talk about the defined benefit vs. defined contribution pension plans. I happen to agree that this move should be made, but its just not that simple. If I were a union leader or negotiator there is almost nothing that would persuade me to advise my members to willingly make that move! I have no idea what other turmoil a move like this would cause either. How many people who work for the government now would bail and not go back as soon as the pension plans and such are gone and your wages are frozen for a couple of years? (How many people would stay at a company that did this?)

I also note that there are some pretty deep cuts that are outlined here. While its hard because I think that the PC's are off-track, I also think that our current education and healthcare has a lot of room for improvement. I'm not convinced that slashing their budgets, delaying new clinics and schools will help improve things there either.

I don't know anything about the wildrose plan, and I'm not saying it's necessarily better. The report I linked to is from the Finance dep't of the Alberta Government. I try to only use official sources.

It should also be noted that 2008-2009 had nearly 12 Billion of resource revenue. This government claims they have a revenue problem that is out of their control. That is false, as the revenue that's out of their control is still huge, and they should plan better to live within it.

2012-13 revenue is forecast to be the fifth-highest on record

is a quote from the report I linked above. We have a significant deficit with near record revenues. Sounds like a problem of unsustainable spending to me.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I see that number being bandied about this week, but I have no idea how they get to it? Do you have that info?

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/is-al...are-the-facts/

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I don't know anything about the wildrose plan, and I'm not saying it's necessarily better. The report I linked to is from the Finance dep't of the Alberta Government. I try to only use official sources.

It should also be noted that 2008-2009 had nearly 12 Billion of resource revenue. This government claims they have a revenue problem that is out of their control. That is false, as the revenue that's out of their control is still huge, and they should plan better to live within it.

Right, my initial point was that of course the sustainability fund was used following 2008-2009....that was the whole point of the fund. My comments after that about the Wildrose plan were of a different topic; they just released the report, I just read it and thought that I would post some thoughts. The two weren't really meant to be connected thoughts.

is a quote from the report I linked above. We have a significant deficit with near record revenues. Sounds like a problem of unsustainable spending to me.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/is-al...are-the-facts/

I have seen that and heard about this. What I'm wondering is how they get to that figure, or the figures in the chart though? It just seems odd that Alberta takes in more taxes than so many others, yet our tax rates are so much lower?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

I have seen that and heard about this. What I'm wondering is how they get to that figure, or the figures in the chart though? It just seems odd that Alberta takes in more taxes than so many others, yet our tax rates are so much lower?

Albertans have much higher personal and corporate income than other provinces, so a lower rate still gives a higher dollar amount.

Also, I think we have a higher per capita take from liquor and VLTs.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I have seen that and heard about this. What I'm wondering is how they get to that figure, or the figures in the chart though? It just seems odd that Alberta takes in more taxes than so many others, yet our tax rates are so much lower?

Incomes are much higher.

Many believe the low tax environment spurs business development, investment, and job creation. Some even called that the Alberta Advantage.

Thus, low taxes = high revenues. It's only a myth that Alberta has a revenue problem.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Albertans have much higher personal and corporate income than other provinces, so a lower rate still gives a higher dollar amount.

Also, I think we have a higher per capita take from liquor and VLTs.

This is why I want to see how they get to those figures. I have absolutely zero problem with consumption taxes like alcohol and VLTs. I have some major misgivings about VLTs in general, but that is another issue.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Incomes are much higher.

Many believe the low tax environment spurs business development, investment, and job creation. Some even called that the Alberta Advantage.

Thus, low taxes = high revenues. It's only a myth that Alberta has a revenue problem.

Well if this is based on the fact that we have higher incomes, ergo more tax revenue, its a smoke screen. We could have the lowest taxes in the nation and have no debt concerns whatsoever. Thats basically using a statistic to try to show that we are somehow heavily taxed here, and that is obviously nonsense.

[Senator Clay Davis]

$896 million earned in Tobacco tax, $1.4 billion from booze and one armed bandits (from 2011 actual numbers released). Goddamn we like to get drunk and piss all our money away.