Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

The Ethics Commissioner won't make a ruling until post-election, and whatever decision with be rendered moot.

Smith may very well have requested the investigation to kick the can further down the road.

That sounds like a Trump strategy, stall and delay.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

The Ethics Commissioner won't make a ruling until post-election, and whatever decision with be rendered moot.

Smith may very well have requested the investigation to kick the can further down the road.

I know you’re right, but this should be such an easy open and shut case. “Well, you say here you’ve been contacting prosecutors every week, so pretty clearly it’s a violation.”

[Muta]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Are we still posting everytime a ucp candidate does or says something stupid or no?

Hell yeah!

[Dion]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Are we still posting everytime a ucp candidate does or says something stupid or no?

I did the same thing when Notley and the NDP were in power. I got raked over the coals for that

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know you’re right, but this should be such an easy open and shut case. “Well, you say here you’ve been contacting prosecutors every week, so pretty clearly it’s a violation.”

Hearsay

[FlameOn]

On more horrible stuff from the UCP, their candidate for Livingstone-Macleod has made a public statement that heart attack victims should "take personal accountability for having a heart attack" and assume responsibility for their poor health. She goes on to basically state that all heart attack victims are at fault for being fat.

I always thought it was just pure greed that drove the UCP to outsource healthcare and critical services to their cronies, but viewed from that type of lens, I understand now why Conservatives would want to dismantle the health care system.

A United Conservative Party candidate is suggesting heart attack victims should take more personal accountability.

Chelsae Petrovic, the UCP candidate for Livingstone-Macleod, who is also the current mayor of Claresholm and a nurse, said she sees people suffer from heart attacks and not take responsibility for the own health.

“This might be political suicide here, what I’m about to say,” she prefaced her comments during an interview in February with a podcast called The Canadian Story, hosted by David Parker and Zach Gerbe.

“We can look at this and I see it in health care, I’m going to say it: maybe the reason you had a heart attack was because you haven’t taken care of yourself; You’re extremely overweight, you haven’t managed your congestive heart failure, you haven’t managed your diabetes, and there’s no personal accountability,” Petrovic said.

“But they come into the hospital and it’s all of a sudden everyone else’s problem but their own.”

Mount Royal University Political Scientist Duane Bratt said while he agrees personal choices could lead to health risks, he calls Petrovic’s comments tone deaf.

“Any time a candidate on the eve of an election begins by saying this may be political suicide, that should be a hint that you should stop talking — but she continues,” Bratt said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9614096/l...tack-comments/

[Fuzz]

I guess that's the attitude to take when you aren't at risk of a heart attack because you don't have a heart at all. What a horrible person.

[GGG]

If you want to address the issue of personal accountability then increasing and expanding sin taxes will be the answer. Add a sugar tax, a fat tax, and increase alcohol taxes so they pay for their societal costs.

[powderjunkie]

I'd be curious if broad health indicators vary by political leanings (though likely informed more by other factors like rural vs urban)...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'd be curious if broad health indicators vary by political leanings (though likely informed more by other factors like rural vs urban)...

Income drives most health stats.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

From my perspective I don't think that she is completely incorrect in her statement, there are a lot of people who make horrible health choices that result in costly outcomes. Some of the biggest being smoking cigarettes, drinking excessive alcohol, and obesity.

I think that it is fair to state that some people's modifiable behaviours can cost the provincial health care system a significant amount of money. No one was really arguing against that during COVID with many people arguing that the unvaccinated population were responsible for their own negative health outcomes.

The problem with the UCP is that it sort of ends at personal accountability without support, whereas if it was a personal accountability with a healthy dose of preventative health care (ie better funding for family physicians and NPs) to help support the population in question it would be much more well received in my opinion at least... #### have provincially funded personal trainers for the population being deemed at risk.

[FlameOn]

There are plenty of people who are healthy, slim, and still get a heart attack. i.e. not fat, non-smokers, like she implies. Pretty famous ones too like Lance Reddick as a recent example. There are a lot of risk factors that go into heart attacks, some of which are just genetic pre-disposition increasing risk. Also that is Covid and long Covid effects which increases risk for a whole lot of conditions.

Her phrasing and meaning are exactly what you would expect from the UCP types, she's does not want anything to do with other people's heart attacks being made her problem. i.e. not looking to set up any type of preventative care and wants others to pay for it and would vote to strip others of that basic care. As we've seen already in other places, all this does is increase everyone's overall healthcare cost, decrease service quality, and accessibility.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

From my perspective I don't think that she is completely incorrect in her statement, there are a lot of people who make horrible health choices that result in costly outcomes.

From my perspective I would just flat out agree. It's clear she is talking about the "rule not the exception." 70% of males are overweight in Canada, a lot of our ailments are our fault used loosely. Obviously a lot aren't. But I think her statement is fair and true, and it's almost concerning to me that people take issue with it. We have a health problem guys, it's okay to acknowledge it and take action, let's not treat this like guns in the USA lol.

I guess it's more the motive for the statement and, as a politician, her actual plan to combat it. Is she, like she would clarify, arguing for betting education, maybe even laws like France banning free refills for sugary drinks, or (more worrisome) trying to suggest that we are responsible for our personal health so we should pay for it personally?

[Roughneck]

Are obesity rates, heart attack risk, and healthcare spending lower in the land of personal responsibility down south?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

There are plenty of people who are healthy, slim, and still get a heart attack. i.e. not fat, non-smokers, like she implies. Pretty famous ones too like Lance Reddick is a recent example. There are a lot of risk factors that go into heart attacks, some of which are just genetic pre-disposition increasing risk. Also that is Covid and long Covid effects which increases risk for a whole lot of conditions.

Her phrasing and meaning are exactly what you would expect from the UCP types, she's does not want anything to do with other people's heart attacks being made her problem. i.e. not looking to set up any type of preventative care and wants others to pay for it and would vote to strip others of that basic care. As we've seen already in other places, all this does is increase everyone's overalls, decrease services, and accessibility.

You are right, not everyone who has a heart attack has that as a result of their lifestyle. However I would suggest that a significant portion, if not a majority, have heart attacks related to modifiable behaviours. It would be foolhardy to say that obesity, along with smoking, drinking and drug use don't result in negative health consequences.

There is a degree of personal choices that have been made, resulting in the current situation.

I am overweight, I know it and I know that I need to do more in order to better myself and my health. I know that if I keep on this path it can result in a negative health consequence at a younger age.

As I said we as a society have issues but as a result we need new thinking and increased government supports in order to come up with new ideas. Personally I think that having personal trainers and fitness memberships being prescribed by physicians for at risk groups, and having basic fitness memberships be tax deductible as well as government supported gyms in rural communities would be a start.

[Ozy_Flame]

The only poll that matters is the election, but this must be making the Wildrose United Party sweat.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1645770130658574342

[Hemi-Cuda]

Come on south Calgary, get your #### together

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

You are right, not everyone who has a heart attack has that as a result of their lifestyle. However I would suggest that a significant portion, if not a majority, have heart attacks related to modifiable behaviours. It would be foolhardy to say that obesity, along with smoking, drinking and drug use don't result in negative health consequences.

There is a degree of personal choices that have been made, resulting in the current situation.

I am overweight, I know it and I know that I need to do more in order to better myself and my health. I know that if I keep on this path it can result in a negative health consequence at a younger age.

As I said we as a society have issues but as a result we need new thinking and increased government supports in order to come up with new ideas. Personally I think that having personal trainers and fitness memberships being prescribed by physicians for at risk groups, and having basic fitness memberships be tax deductible as well as government supported gyms in rural communities would be a start.

Did you need Chelsae Petrovic to help you come to this realization and are her comments in any way shape or form going to help you combat this?

[Cappy]

I don't think her assertion is wrong; but, as a political candidate, it is completely tone deaf and further falls under Danielle Smith's previous statements about health and health care.

The idea that this candidate is putting out there is that we shouldnt have publicly funded health care because why should i pay for someone's heart attack when they aren't taking care of themselves???

The argument she is making, given her political party, is just plain disingenuous. She does not talk about shifting healthcare spending to prevention (something that should be done) or ways government policies can help early detection. Her comment is entirely focused on ending public healthcare.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

Did you need Chelsae Petrovic to help you come to this realization and are her comments in any way shape or form going to help you combat this?

Probably not, but sometimes people need a reminder and the source of that reminder isn't necessarily all that important.

In the context of a looming election, her comments are completely idiotic, and if she has any sort of campaign manager, they should fire her as a client because -- as Duane Bratt said -- that is a massively tone deaf thing to say.

That she said what she said at the most inappropriate time doesn't make the context of her statement incorrect, it just makes her a dumb-ass strategically.