Alberta budget news

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

It's hard to blame the increased health costs on the creation of a superboard when the superboard's creation merely coincided with some of the largest construction and expansion projects the province has seen. The South Medical Centre only just got underway when AHS was created. Foothills was in the middle of it's ~$2B expansion and now we're in the position of needing to staff and supply these things. So in Calgary alone there was essentially $4B worth of projects (in only two of the hospitals) that were given the go ahead before AHS was created but now AHS is taking the heat for because their budget is increasing to accommodate the running of such facilities province wide.

Well the South Campus didn't open until 2012, and construction is a capital expenditure, so how do you explain year-over-year increases in opex that have outpaced population growth from 2008-2011?

I'll admit that I've never worked in the healthcare field, but in my private sector experience moving from a decentralized structure to a centralized one has resulted in slower decision making, less accountability for front line employees, increased waste, and greater inefficiency. Based on my discussions with people in the industry, I'd be willing to bet that the same has occured since the transition to AHS.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

[I]Satya Das, a shrewd commentator from Cambridge Strategies in Edmonton, observes in a postbudget commentary: “Do Albertans really feel entitled to the best of everything, without reckoning we need to fund the cost of all the societal benefits we receive? Until citizens are ready to pay for our needs and wants out of our earnings, we shouldn’t blame politicians for selling off the resources that are our children’s birthright in order to indulge our lifestyle.” Yes, Mr. Das, but who’s listening?.....
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/comment...service=mobile

Please read

Not a bad read. It really highlights the fork in the road we've arrived at. Either embrace the big government path we've been going down over the past 10 years by raising taxes to a level that will support this type of spending, or return to fiscally-responsible governance.

Most importantly, the waste of non-renewable resources revenue on meeting short term budget obligations needs to stop.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Not a bad read. It really highlights the fork in the road we've arrived at. Either embrace the big government path we've been going down over the past 10 years by raising taxes to a level that will support this type of spending, or return to fiscally-responsible governance.

Most importantly, the waste of non-renewable resources revenue on meeting short term budget obligations needs to stop.

Surely there is a middle path?

EDIT: Oops, I forgot. Alberta only has a spending problem, not a revenue problem (as proven by the WRP).

[Azure]

Wasn't the superboard broken down again?

Either way, if you want to keep what Alberta has, you have to pay for it in a way that is sustainable.

Sure, it would be great if the health care system was more efficient, but I doubt it creates billions in savings overnight. Overhauling the system would take years of work.

There is a middle of the road approach that can be found. Problem is the PCs are far past that.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Well the South Campus didn't open until 2012, and construction is a capital expenditure, so how do you explain year-over-year increases in opex that have outpaced population growth from 2008-2011?

A good chunk of funding still came through AHS, not to mention that even under construction, the staffing, purchasing, administration etc. all had to be done in the years leading up to it opening which means added costs there too.

There has also been a lot of catchup that has need to be played as a result of the Klein cuts all this time later. New hospitals up north (~$1B), big redevelopments down south (~$350M), expansions in senior care and cancer care etc. that all fell behind in the 90s and was slow on the uptake in the 2000s. Our healthcare costs are increasing because we had to build/upgrade/repair all these facilities essentially all at the same time and the equipment for all of them and the people to run it. There will of course be the inherent inefficiency in getting all that working smoothly.

I'll admit that I've never worked in the healthcare field, but in my private sector experience moving from a decentralized structure to a centralized one has resulted in slower decision making, less accountability for front line employees, increased waste, and greater inefficiency. Based on my discussions with people in the industry, I'd be willing to bet that the same has occured since the transition to AHS.

This could very well be the case. One of the big hopes for the board was to create one standard for the province rather than the 9 before which has resulted in a lot of criticism from doctors (my dad is one of them). However considering how young AHS is and just how much money has been spent recently on capital projects, we probably need more time to tell if the one tradeoff was worth the gain in other areas (if there was a gain at all). I think it is safe to say that switching back from the zones to the independent regions wouldn't be fun or efficient in the first few years either.

[FlamesFanStrandedInEDM]

Words cannot deacribe how im feeling right now. As a new teacher on a temporary contract. The cut to AISI could potentially have me out of work by April. How does removing teachers from the classroom mid-year lead to "putting our students first". Classroom sizes are going to get out of control and fast. The truth is, the students were never a top priority. It has always been about oil and gas.

Redford won her party leadership on the backs of teachers who signed up for memberships because they felt she would be the best choice for public education. Turns out she was just a wolf in sheeps clothing and should be ashamed of herself. The increased funding for infrastructure doesnt mean a damn thing if the school districts cant afford to employ teachers to fill them. This budget is a huge disappointment.

In developing countries, education is one of the first things they implement to strive for success. In alberta, its the first thing to go.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanStrandedInEDM

Words cannot deacribe how im feeling right now. As a new teacher on a temporary contract. The cut to AISI could potentially have me out of work by April. How does removing teachers from the classroom mid-year lead to "putting our students first". Classroom sizes are going to get out of control and fast. The truth is, the students were never a top priority. It has always been about oil and gas.

Redford won her party leadership on the backs of teachers who signed up for memberships because they felt she would be the best choice for public education. Turns out she was just a wolf in sheeps clothing and should be ashamed of herself. The increased funding for infrastructure doesnt mean a damn thing if the school districts cant afford to employ teachers to fill them. This budget is a huge disappointment.

In developing countries, education is one of the first things they implement to strive for success. In alberta, its the first thing to go.

This is a situation that is absolutely ridiculous! In Calgary though, I'm not sure who to blame; if the admin budget continues to rise for the CBE then I put the blame squarely on them! I say as a failed trustee candidate in 2010 that this should not be the case. It's exactly what I was running against and a deplorable situation. We had been cutting teachers at that time as well, and the admin budget was increasing by almost 7 (!!)full percent. Such a joke!

There are all kinds of games they play with the numbers as well. Its just more and more frustrating as I sit here and think about it! I am almost at the point where I think we should crush the boards, amalgamate catholic and public and have one big super board province wide.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are all kinds of games they play with the numbers as well. Its just more and more frustrating as I sit here and think about it! I am almost at the point where I think we should crush the boards, amalgamate catholic and public and have one big super board province wide.

Yes, that worked out so well for removing waste in the health care system.

[Azure]

A single board would just deflects the problem, again....which is exactly what happened with the health care system.

Firing teachers is a rather strange way of 'cutting expenses.' What are they gonna save? A few million?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Yes, that worked out so well for removing waste in the health care system.

Originally Posted by Azure

A single board would just deflects the problem, again....which is exactly what happened with the health care system.

Firing teachers is a rather strange way of 'cutting expenses.' What are they gonna save? A few million?

I know, its such an obvious flaw in my thought! Thing is that we pay and fund all of these local school boards around the province, and I have to think that things could be more efficient? I mean the board in Calgary has a governance model (Carver model if anyone is interested) which is basically one where the admin runs everything anyway. Now factor in the incredible apathy for these elections; the most common question people have isn't what you would do as a platform or anything like that....its what in the world is a public school trustee? People have no idea what they're voting for despite the candidates valiant attempts.

On top of this systematic failing we have two school boards here that provide the exact same education...except for an hour a week? When I was young I always wondered what was going on in Catholic schools. It must be so different, I would think to myself. A few years later in talking to some Catholic school attending friends the secret was out - its almost the exact same! We spend millions of dollars though, building two schools where one big one would be fine, hiring two sets of administration where one would be its equal and of course duplicating everything else through the system. Utter stupidity. We set aside two parcels of land, to build everything from scratch; playgrounds, football fields, and obviously the schools themselves. We spend money to maintain both facilities and have parents fundraise for both entities as well.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I don't think you would see a massive savings - you will still need to build the same number of schools, hire the same number of teachers, build the same number of playgrounds, it isn't as though there are a huge number of schools that are being built and then have low occupancy/student numbers. You could say that they could build a bigger school but that requires more land and materials leading to the same place.

The savings would be seen in decreased administration costs. One thing that is really quite upsetting though is that they built the new CBE building downtown where space and rent is at a premium - building it in the suburbs would be a much better option and work towards saving some money.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I don't think you would see a massive savings - you will still need to build the same number of schools, hire the same number of teachers, build the same number of playgrounds, it isn't as though there are a huge number of schools that are being built and then have low occupancy/student numbers. You could say that they could build a bigger school but that requires more land and materials leading to the same place.

The savings would be seen in decreased administration costs.

Yes, that worked out so well for removing waste in the health care system.

[Regorium]

I'm sure this has been said, but "cutting government" is not really the answer.

In the structure of a government institution, they have a vast number of managers because the vast majority of their projects are outsourced. In addition, the managers are needed because they are approving things that will have significant effects on the whole city, and need to be empowered to do so. Having 10 staff that do nothing but funnel everything to 1 manager is not efficient, nor is it effective.

Considering the amount of crap that the city gets from their "clients", whether it's a developer, an oil/gas operator, a design company, or what not, I want enough people with significant experience and knowledge to deal with the shadiness that will inevitably come. I don't want a fresh grad that is going to approve zoning based on a developer's presentation. Unfortunately, it seems like that's what people that are all about "cutting government" seem to want.

Not to mention, WR people and Republicans alike, are always saying "okay we audit the institutions and then slash and burn! that'll get us $xx trillion savings". When it comes time to actually slash and burn, they will always balk. It's one of those things that is so vague. I think it's necessary for WR to state exactly how much is coming out of which departments - and see whether the general public likes the answer or not.

Also, I just read some WR documentation on their plans. Seriously, pay freezes and 20% cuts to front-line public sector workers? Considering they already get paid like crap and deal with so much garbage, it's no wonder that they can't attract and retain talent. I don't understand why these workers, who are exactly like you and me, get scapegoated for everything.

[Fire]

The "good" way to solve the major deficit/debt problems in this country is to introduce more private options in health care. Health care is costing almost 50% of the budget and will only increase. Why are politicians scared to talk about this?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

The "good" way to solve the major deficit/debt problems in this country is to introduce more private options in health care. Health care is costing almost 50% of the budget and will only increase. Why are politicians scared to talk about this?

Because there is no evidence that private care actually saves money. Purely politically though, its a non-starter because people don't believe that someone should get/not get medical attention purely based on whether they can afford it.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Slava

Purely politically though, its a non-starter because people don't believe that someone should get/not get medical attention purely based on whether they can afford it.

Probably for a separate thread - but why not?

(playing devils advocate here)

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I don't think you would see a massive savings - you will still need to build the same number of schools, hire the same number of teachers, build the same number of playgrounds, it isn't as though there are a huge number of schools that are being built and then have low occupancy/student numbers. You could say that they could build a bigger school but that requires more land and materials leading to the same place.

The savings would be seen in decreased administration costs. One thing that is really quite upsetting though is that they built the new CBE building downtown where space and rent is at a premium - building it in the suburbs would be a much better option and work towards saving some money.

Saskatoon has tried this at the high school level. The west side has a Catholic high school on one side (Bethlehem), a public collegiate on the other (Tommy Douglas) and a recreation facility in the middle (Shaw Centre) that gets used by the students during the day when usage would otherwise be low. It seems to work well there. Now there is only a limited amount of places this could be done but this cooperation is more likely in my view than going to one 'super-public' board.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Probably for a separate thread - but why not?

(playing devils advocate here)

Because we don't measure the value of a person's life by the size of their bank account?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Fire

The "good" way to solve the major deficit/debt problems in this country is to introduce more private options in health care. Health care is costing almost 50% of the budget and will only increase. Why are politicians scared to talk about this?

If we cut funding to health care and privatize, then you need cut taxes so people have the money to afford health care, no?

If you don't then you are still just raising taxes.

Keep in mind I don't think some types of increased privatization of Health Care is a necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think it solves anything to do with our budget problems.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Yes, that worked out so well for removing waste in the health care system.

If there were two Calgary Health Regions, one for Catholics and one for Non-Catholics then I could see the comparable.