Alberta budget news

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Julio

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.

The new high schools in West Lethbridge were also built on this concept. Public high school on the west end, Catholic high school on the east end and a public library in the middle.

There are separate gyms, but the sports fields, tennis courts and ball diamonds are all shared afaik.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Rathji

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.

The public option will still be there. Only those who can afford the private option will use it. Less people using the public option will decrease in the funding needed. Less doctors, less beds, less money paid out, less fraud.

This should allow less taxes assuming the government doesn't spend the savings elsewhere.

Health care is the biggest expense for any government, not looking at ways to cut it, is foolish.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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

There are a lot of homeless people in Canada. Why don't we have state housing for everyone? Also your house better not be bigger than mine, because that would affect my mental health.

I know it pains you, but we don't live in a socialist country (unless the NDP wins the next election).

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Fire

The public option will still be there. Only those who can afford the private option will use it. Less people using the public option will decrease in the funding needed. Less doctors, less beds, less money paid out, less fraud.

This should allow less taxes assuming the government doesn't spend the savings elsewhere.

Health care is the biggest expense for any government, not looking at ways to cut it, is foolish.

If only it were this easy, the US would be #1 in the world in health care spending as a % of GDP. Instead they're dead last. Once you introduce the profit motive to health care, everyone becomes a customer instead of a patient. And there's nothing money making corporations love to do more than rob customers blind. Time Magazine had an excellent look line by line at an American hospital bill. No shocker that they are making 10,000%+ margins on many items.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

The public option will still be there. Only those who can afford the private option will use it. Less people using the public option will decrease in the funding needed. Less doctors, less beds, less money paid out, less fraud.

This should allow less taxes assuming the government doesn't spend the savings elsewhere.

Health care is the biggest expense for any government, not looking at ways to cut it, is foolish.

Well we already don't have enough staff though and this would only exacerbate that problem. If you give doctors a choice in working as a private doctor for more money as opposed to a public practice, you know what they'll choose. I don't fault them for that at all, I would make that same choice. I just don't see how that would be helpful though.

The other factor with private care is the "cherry-picking" of procedures where they can make money whereas the expensive, not profitable procedures are left for the public system to deal with. So while the private system can make the call on whether to provide a service or not purely from the context of profitability, the public system provides these services based on need. Its not a level playing field.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 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.

We don't know though because the middle management level has become so huge. you could almost take the Michael Douglas speech from Wall Street, we've looked at the structure and we can't figure out how it works.

I think three does have to be a departmental efficiency audit done at the management level to see if there is waste.

And I: don't buy that these people are so poorly paid, when you add their benefits into their compensation plan they are very well compensated for what they do.

the fact that the day to day budget is so out of whack the cuts have to come, the government spending has to come down and the primary place that it is going to have to come from is in the people area.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Fire

I know it pains you, but we don't live in a socialist country.

I know it pains *you*, but actually we do live in a socialist country, if by "socialist" you mean having universal health care, welfare, public housing (at least at the subsidy level), and government interference in the economy.

[Slava]

Kent Hehr is asking the Auditor General to review the budget: http://www.scribd.com/doc/129763538/...-March-11-2013

[GP_Matt]

Regarding Health Care, if I want better care than the public will pay for, why should I have to leave the country for it.
It seems to me that Canada would be better served if we didn't encourage people to spend their money outside of the country.
We are starting to do it for a lot of things. MRI's are a perfect example, the province says that it will take x amount of months to get an MRI done but if you want to you can pay $800 to have one done right away by a private company. Why is that okay, but I am stuck with the same family doctor for as long as he feels like practicing.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Regarding Health Care, if I want better care than the public will pay for, why should I have to leave the country for it.
It seems to me that Canada would be better served if we didn't encourage people to spend their money outside of the country.
We are starting to do it for a lot of things. MRI's are a perfect example, the province says that it will take x amount of months to get an MRI done but if you want to you can pay $800 to have one done right away by a private company. Why is that okay, but I am stuck with the same family doctor for as long as he feels like practicing.

You're not. It depends if other doctors are accepting patients - and due to a shortage they often times are not.

[GGG]

On the health care front we need to place a dollar value on peoples lives. The current system is unsustainable. The costs are rising faster than inflation. Its % of the budget increases each year. As technology improves there are going to be more expensive treatment options and the ability to keep people alive indefinately. Eventually we have to to draw a line and say the State will pay for the following conditions and procedures. If you would like more feel free to find a private supplier.

I don't want people losing their retirement to fight cancer but there has to be a balance and right now we treat too much.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

You're not. It depends if other doctors are accepting patients - and due to a shortage they often times are not.

My wife has met with a few doctors who advertise that they are accepting new patients and they have all told her that they don't accept patients who already have a doctor.

[Azure]

IMO, health care costs are rising because people don't know how to take care of themselves.

Outside of actual health problems, severe sickness, broken bones, etc, etc.....is there really a reason to constantly go visit the doctor? People eat like slobs, and lead non-active lifestyles and then wonder why they get sick all the time.

North America has a huge problem with this, and it will only get worse unless we start taking our health seriously, and the biggest place to start is with our kids.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

My wife has met with a few doctors who advertise that they are accepting new patients and they have all told her that they don't accept patients who already have a doctor.

That is the choice of the doctor then. I fail to see the relation between that and universal health care.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Azure

IMO, health care costs are rising because people don't know how to take care of themselves.

Outside of actual health problems, severe sickness, broken bones, etc, etc.....is there really a reason to constantly go visit the doctor? People eat like slobs, and lead non-active lifestyles and then wonder why they get sick all the time.

North America has a huge problem with this, and it will only get worse unless we start taking our health seriously, and the biggest place to start is with our kids.

I recall reading recently a statistic along the lines of 5% of patients incur 50% of the costs. I can't find the actual numbers but the gist was that most of the costs occur with end of life care and chronic ailments.

A person who goes once a month for something minor might run up a $8000 bill, but a person with cancer will cost the system far more than that in a week.

I am not saying we should stop spending money on cancer patients, just pointing out where the big money is spent.

[Tinordi]

I wonder how many people who are for reducing health care costs by suasion of health lifestyles are against the proposed confiscation of cell phones when driving. Those two viewpoints are not compatible.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I recall reading recently a statistic along the lines of 5% of patients incur 50% of the costs. I can't find the actual numbers but the gist was that most of the costs occur with end of life care and chronic ailments.

A person who goes once a month for something minor might run up a $8000 bill, but a person with cancer will cost the system far more than that in a week.

I am not saying we should stop spending money on cancer patients, just pointing out where the big money is spent.

And how much of that 'big money' is spent on patients that made no effort to take care of themselves in their younger years? Diabetes, heart failure, cancer due to smoking or drug use, etc, etc....are all health conditions that can possibly be avoided if someone at least ATTEMPTS to live a healthier lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I wonder how many people who are for reducing health care costs by suasion of health lifestyles are against the proposed confiscation of cell phones when driving. Those two viewpoints are not compatible.

Nor does one have anything to do with the other.

People who choose to live healthier lifestyles are far and away less likely to be a cost to our health care system at SOME point.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

And how much of that 'big money' is spent on patients that made no effort to take care of themselves in their younger years? Diabetes, heart failure, cancer due to smoking or drug use, etc, etc....are all health conditions that can possibly be avoided if someone at least ATTEMPTS to live a healthier lifestyle.





Nor does one have anything to do with the other.

People who choose to live healthier lifestyles are far and away less likely to be a cost to our health care system at SOME point.

I think that user fees in the form of sin taxes are the way to go on these items. Calculate the societal cost of ciggarettes, booze, pop, fat, etc and tax appropriately. Its not about forcing people or encouraging people to live a certain way its about people paying for the costs of their choices.

[Azure]

I agree with the sin tax, but I'm not so sure about applying it to everything we deem as being 'junk food.'

Pretty slippery slope, especially if you consider how much influence 'big food' has on the government.

[chemgear]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Bu...520/story.html

With more than half of all school boards in Alberta getting less money from the province next year, some critics are questioning why the Alberta government didn’t instead make deeper funding cuts to private schools.

The province will support private schools to the tune of $206 million in the coming year, an overall five per cent increase from this year. Funding for school boards will rise just 0.8 per cent to $6.1 billion.