Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Employment % doesn't really matter, because unemployed people don't accrue benefits either. So unless you think Alberta's population is going to dramatically start shrinking boom/bust doesn't change the numbers on this. And because of the previous young people growth it would take decades of emigration to get to the point this wasn't advantageous from a demographic point of view. Boom/bust isn't a factor, because the cycles are too short for that.

Anyway, like I said the UCP and Aimco aren't trustworthy enough for this, but the underlying demographic math is pretty irrefutable, and populations just don't move enough for it change. Especially the very old (who didn't pay for their own cpp) are not likely to start moving provinces.

Speaking of employment, one of the Free Alberta planks is to set up a provincial unemployment program. That seems particularly fraught with risk with our roller-coaster economy.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I agree it's not as easy as 'just fix it', there are a million things to improve, but surely they can be improved. Fast-tracking the certification of foreign nurses was a good move. I hate to say it, but contracting out selected treatments might be part of the solution, concerns about cherry-picking and poaching staff notwithstanding, but again if there are people and spaces available to do these surgeries why wasn't the public sector able to gear up to do them?

On the topic of nurse certification, I wonder what the economics of that are. My understanding is that overtime is a significant drain on the system, particularly when severely short of staff on an on-going basis. I've often thought the government could save money or at least break even by hiring more nurses, which it now appears they can. I'm curious if there's a break-even point where there can be more nurses for the same overall cost.

Alberta has the most vacant family residency spots in Canada, and the most for Alberta in over a decade. There are medical students who are literally taking a year off instead of starting their residency here. There's a reason for that. Our government is constantly fighting with HCWs.


Fixing this stuff really isn't as complicated as we make it. The reason the public sector isn't able to gear them up is because that's not what our conservative governments want. We give away money left and right for arenas or cleaning up abandone wells, but March of 2020 we were planning on laying off over 700 nurses, then the pandemic hit. It's lunacy. Of course all our money can't go to healthcare, but maybe we shouldn't be spending it on arenas, or oil war rooms.

Getting into an RN program is difficult, the first step is to create more spaces, people will fill them. Does every RN need to have a 3.8 gpa to get in, or would 3.6 be good enough, why is it based strictly on grades? I know doctors who didn't get in on their first try and by all accounts are great doctors, create more spots. Once you have the staff you take all the operating rooms, and make sure they are running 24/7.

Once you're staffed up and running, then you can look at smaller facilities to fill in the gaps if needed. We aren't doing that. Our government is trying to skip the part where we improve sector.

Fast tracking foreign nurses etc is fine. We need to keep the nurses we have as well. They are generally stretched thin, and burnout etc is real. If there's turnover that's also costly. We also shouldn't be REQUIRING nurses to work overtime constantly. LPN's are underpaid (at least last I checked) and they expanded their roles just a couple years ago. At the same time it seems as though we have been hiring more LPN's to work under RN's when we should be trying to increase the number of RN's. At least that's the impression I got from a nursing friend, but that could just be her department, I'm unsure.

Open spots, pay people appropriately, have facilities running efficiently, and for the love of god stop fighting with HCW's and constantly trying to lay them off. If hospital workers aren't working at 110% that's ok.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Is this right? Unemployed people aren't accruing benefits but you still need a bunch of people funding it to cover current obligations as people live longer. If everyone just stopped worked/paying CPP tomorrow - would they have the money to pay out everything owed to people who are owed today?

I think it would be right if you the boom/bust followed a forecasted pattern, but if the oil market dried up faster than expected - would that still work?

Well, the benefit is based on your contributions to the plan and not on investment returns. If you contribute the maximum (40years at the maximum pensionable earnings in the case of CPP), you get the maximum benefit. The investment returns aren’t a consideration. If the CPPIB shoots the lights out and gets 20% a year for the next 20 years, you still get the maximum based on the contributions.

If everyone stopped working, I guess you have a major issue (because essentially society has collapsed at that point), but theoretically the contributions are there and growing, which would pay you the pension. I mean, apocalyptic scenarios aren’t really something we can predict and know what’s going to happen, but that’s a theoretical possibility. It’s like one of my clients asking me about what to invest in if we see nuclear war between Russia and the US over the Ukraine conflict…and truthfully I don’t think anyone can answer that with any certainty!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Is this right? Unemployed people aren't accruing benefits but you still need a bunch of people funding it to cover current obligations as people live longer. If everyone just stopped worked/paying CPP tomorrow - would they have the money to pay out everything owed to people who are owed today?

I think it would be right if you the boom/bust followed a forecasted pattern, but if the oil market dried up faster than expected - would that still work?

The way to think about it is the bigger the ratio of people working to people who didn't contribute their fair share (retired folks who worked prior to the early 90s) the better off you are.

So yes, if everyone in Alberta stopped working that'd be a problem and the demographics would be better off in the rest of Canada, but that isn't realistic. The worst unemployment rate in the '80s recession was ~13%, and even covid peak when a huge percentage of the economy stopped was ~15%. If Alberta had its worst recession ever by about double and unemployment went to 25% and stayed there, our demographics would still be better than keeping with the current CPP demographic pool. So basically under any plausible scenario the demographics are better in Alberta than they are elsewhere.

And it isn't true that Alberta aging over time will be a problem, because the problem isn't old people, the problem is old people that didn't cover their own CPP, and that only includes time worked before the changes in the early '90s.

Anyway, this is all sort of academic, because the UCP and Aimco are basically untrustworthy weasels, so giving them control of our pension money is a terrible idea and we shouldn't do it. But all else equal we'd absolutely be better off.

Alberta's economy is diversifying away from oil and gas right now anyway, because in a post-Covid world work from home makes the population a lot more mobile. I just rented a condo to a couple from Vancouver. Both their (professional) jobs went permanent work from home, and the rent they're paying me is barely over half what their previous landlord was charging them for something similar. So they're way ahead by moving, and their jobs have nothing to do with oil and gas. Things like that repeated over and over make AB's economy less reliant on oil and gas over time as other sectors grow faster.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Employment % doesn't really matter, because unemployed people don't accrue benefits either. So unless you think Alberta's population is going to dramatically start shrinking boom/bust doesn't change the numbers on this. And because of the previous young people growth it would take decades of emigration to get to the point this wasn't advantageous from a demographic point of view. Boom/bust isn't a factor, because the cycles are too short for that.

Anyway, like I said the UCP and Aimco aren't trustworthy enough for this, but the underlying demographic math is pretty irrefutable, and populations just don't move enough for it change. Especially the very old (who didn't pay for their own cpp) are not likely to start moving provinces.

I'll admit I haven't thought about this too deeply, but wouldn't it be fairly easy for us to have a bit of an 'aging boomer' cycle here with our current 'youth advantage'? Doesn't the advantage only continue if young people continue to exceed the retiree population? Wouldn't that require perpetual increases of youth inflow to prevent the current wide 'hips' of our demographic tree from becoming broad shoulders?

[The Big Chill]

I’m in the deep SE of the city, and the lawn sign numbers are interesting. There is slightly more UCP signs than NDP, but much closer then you’d expect for this area. The interesting part though is that there are very few signs in total of any colour. Probably a good indicator that a lot of the conservative voters aren’t exactly jumping at the chance to support this party.

I’d still fully expect an easy win for the UCP here, but maybe not quite as lopsided as usual.

[Regorium]

It's crazy how much Farkas has changed since 2019. It's like he went soul searching and came back a different person.

He was far too much of a fiscal hawk back in 2015-2019, swearing by those values as a "Conservative", but he never recognized the types that he was throwing his lot in with, especially with the rise of Trump.

I think he recognizes that now and it's pretty clear that he would approach things a lot differently.

[HitterD]

Originally Posted by The Big Chill

I’m in the deep SE of the city, and the lawn sign numbers are interesting. There is slightly more UCP signs than NDP, but much closer then you’d expect for this area. The interesting part though is that there are very few signs in total of any colour. Probably a good indicator that a lot of the conservative voters aren’t exactly jumping at the chance to support this party.

I’d still fully expect an easy win for the UCP here, but maybe not quite as lopsided as usual.

Yeah I’m not as convinced that Calgary-Shaw is set up for a clear UCP win anymore either, I’m seeing some things. I visited someone in Belmont yesterday and it’s almost completely orange. Other communities in the riding are closer to 50/50 than I would have imagined and I still think there’s a healthy amount of closet NDP supporters out there too afraid to put a sign out for fear of threats and/or property damage.

I’ve been hoping to see this shift down here so fingers crossed I’m not losing hope for the Deep South just yet

[looooob]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Alberta has the most vacant family residency spots in Canada, and the most for Alberta in over a decade. There are medical students who are literally taking a year off instead of starting their residency here. There's a reason for that. Our government is constantly fighting with HCWs.


.

agree with the general premise of your post- but I think (if I have the right data source) Quebec also fared very poorly on the family medicine match, perhaps worse even corrected for population than Alberta- either way I think it still supports your point when the results are very limited to one or two jurisdictions its time to pause and ask why and not just respond (you aren't saying this of course) 'yes but healthcare is in trouble everywhere'. that may be true but something is happening here, to be sure

[MBates]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Just for clarification.

MBates are you saying based on your expertise in criminal law that in your opinion Danielle Smith has no idea what she’s talking about here and will not be able to deliver on this promise?

To be fair, I would have to clarify that I find it essentially impossible to determine just what Danielle Smith and the UCP are talking about - because they are (a) not saying the same things even; and (b) what is being said by Danielle Smith and candidates in talking points appears to be purposefully misleading.

So, if purposefully misleading then arguably Danielle Smith knows exactly what she is talking about (and knows it is at least partially a fake promise)? Or as you say, she might just have no idea what she is talking about.

I will try to break it down this way:

1. The Constitution Act 1867 will render invalid any law passed by an Alberta government that "in pith and substance" is an exercise of criminal law and criminal procedure jurisdiction (or interferes with federal bail laws already "occupying the field"). So if they are saying they will somehow add 24/7 ankle bracelet monitoring to anyone released on bail who did not already get that condition imposed through the normal existing bail process - they are either misleading voters or they are in fact going to attempt to do it but they know it is unlawful and will never be upheld.

2. If, however, all they are going to do is allocate taxpayer money to either expand the ability of the already existing private monitoring companies to 'monitor more' or 'monitor better' (or whatever, I honestly cannot even follow what they are suggesting) then they can do that...but they are not telling voters that and I would love to hear how that would benefit anyone other than the monitoring companies.

3. If, they are going to enter into competition with the monitoring companies and create a government operated monitoring program that will use Sheriffs to provide 'better' or 'more' monitoring (again whatever that is supposed to mean) then they also could do that...in theory. The constitutional devil would be in the details.

But here is the bottom line...

Nobody can constitutionally be electronically monitored on bail unless a judge lawfully orders such a condition in accordance with the Criminal Code, the Charter, and the binding SCC law interpreting same. And nothing about this campaign announcement would be able to change that.

So maybe Albertans will end up owning thousands of monitoring bracelets that never get used? Because - something something DANGER something something PUBLIC SAFETY!!! something something ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!

Anyway, some others have since offered similar assessments for those interested:

https://globalnews.ca/news/9689915/a...s-out-on-bail/

[Slava]

The NDP is going to issue polycarbonate AHC cards. Should’ve been done at least a decade ago, but hopefully this is finally going to happen!

[woob]

They should just integrate AHC into the driver's license. Have a DL, add the AHC number to it. Don't have a DL? You get a separate poly AHC.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by woob

They should just integrate AHC into the driver's license. Have a DL, add the AHC number to it. Don't have a DL? You get a separate poly AHC.

That would be the sensible way. But honestly, as long as they finally do this, it’s an improvement.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by woob

They should just integrate AHC into the driver's license. Have a DL, add the AHC number to it. Don't have a DL? You get a separate poly AHC.

You don’t even need the DL, anyone in AB can get a photo ID.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Farkas ain't wrong (wow I actually typed that). He echoes what a lot of my conservative friends think. I doubt they will vote NDP ever. But they might just not vote.

More likley they will vote UCP and hope she goes away and is overtaken by saner people in the party though. Which is stupid.

If they really thought that, then an NDP win would be the quickest surefire way to turf Danielle

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It's crazy how much Farkas has changed since 2019. It's like he went soul searching and came back a different person.

He was far too much of a fiscal hawk back in 2015-2019, swearing by those values as a "Conservative", but he never recognized the types that he was throwing his lot in with, especially with the rise of Trump.

I think he recognizes that now and it's pretty clear that he would approach things a lot differently.

He was likely in a right-wing bubble with the likes of that Craig Chandler twat that just kept ramping up the rhetoric the closer we got to the last election. The only way he could look at things with a proper perspective was putting literal distance between him and that bubble

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by looooob

agree with the general premise of your post- but I think (if I have the right data source) Quebec also fared very poorly on the family medicine match, perhaps worse even corrected for population than Alberta- either way I think it still supports your point when the results are very limited to one or two jurisdictions its time to pause and ask why and not just respond (you aren't saying this of course) 'yes but healthcare is in trouble everywhere'. that may be true but something is happening here, to be sure

Aren't french requirements the likely culprit for QC? A small proportion of outsiders are eligible to go in, while most QC residents could go outwards...

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Farkas ain't wrong (wow I actually typed that). He echoes what a lot of my conservative friends think. I doubt they will vote NDP ever. But they might just not vote.

More likley they will vote UCP and hope she goes away and is overtaken by saner people in the party though. Which is stupid.

A vote for Danielle is not a vote for Danielle. I love conservative logic.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Aren't french requirements the likely culprit for QC? A small proportion of outsiders are eligible to go in, while most QC residents could go outwards...

well for sure there are always going to be some issues specific to Quebec, but the number of unfilled slots they have is pretty high, mind you maybe I"m just oblivious to whether that is an annual occurrence

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by looooob

well for sure there are always going to be some issues specific to Quebec, but the number of unfilled slots they have is pretty high, mind you maybe I"m just oblivious to whether that is an annual occurrence

Quebec has had issues with vacant family medicine seats for years. All the way back in 2009 they had 60% of their seats vacant. To make it worse Quebec has added more family resident seats over the past few years.

Residents are paid like garbage but Alberta does pay the highest, so that's a bad sign.

The most annoying part of all this to me is if we have a strong, acessible family med system as a base we'll save a lot of money at other levels. If things are caught early the treatments are less invasive, patients are less likely to require hospitalization and so on.