Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’d say the ones who actually believe this rhetoric about the world economic forum loving all parties except the conservatives are the ones who’ve gone off the deep end. This is just more of the same from Smith.

And as no surprise to anyone, Brian Jean responds to that tweet by declaring she's imitating him, he said no Alberta money will be going towards the WEF and the Great Reset FIRST!

[Faust]

Rebecca Schulz with endorsements from Brad Wall and Tim McMillan.

Interesting.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Faust

Rebecca Schulz with endorsements from Brad Wall and Tim McMillan.

Interesting.

Pretty sure she worked for Brad Wall in Saskatchewan.

Plus, there is the Brad Wall - freedom convoy connection story that came out recently.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Dion

OMG she's gone off the deep end!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1553050101102231554

Exact same position as Pierre Polievre and the Federal Conservatives.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's currently not really privatized. There are some services you can pay for but it's still under the government umbrella and way too expensive. $500 uninsured for a CT Scan or wait a year? What if it were $200 and insured. Would more people jump the queue?

I don't want crazy American privatization where you can get a dental cleaning for $50 (i've done that). But some more services going private and being covered by insurance might move the system along better?

The thing about health care is that an informed consumer doesn't exist. So any form of privatization just turns the system over to hypochondriacs with a little bit of money and causes worse outcomes for everyone else while overall costing a lot more, even if some individual procedures/tests become cheaper.

You can't have an active market place for and industry that has such high stakes people make bad choices

[GGG]

The biggest cost is staffing. The only solutions to staffing is stealing staff from other nations or training more. In an ideal world we would partner with the US and ramp up medical field enrolments in universities then when their are a surplus of trained people we could pay them closer to their European counterparts.

Even without the US it might be cheaper just to throw money at education to decrease scarcity of employees. You could put in special spots in schools that require X years of rural service time as GPs or Family Doctor only spots. Trade free education for restrictions on future employment.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

The biggest cost is staffing. The only solutions to staffing is stealing staff from other nations or training more. In an ideal world we would partner with the US and ramp up medical field entitlements in universities then when their are a surplus of trained people we could pay them closer to their European counterparts.

Even without the US it might be cheaper just to throw money at education to decrease scarcity of employees. You could put in special spots in schools that require X years of rural service time as GPs or Family Doctor only spots. Trade free education for restrictions on future employment.

It takes 2-3 more years of education to become a doctor in N America compared with Europe. For no good reason that I can see.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by GGG

The biggest cost is staffing. The only solutions to staffing is stealing staff from other nations or training more. In an ideal world we would partner with the US and ramp up medical field enrolments in universities then when their are a surplus of trained people we could pay them closer to their European counterparts.

Even without the US it might be cheaper just to throw money at education to decrease scarcity of employees. You could put in special spots in schools that require X years of rural service time as GPs or Family Doctor only spots. Trade free education for restrictions on future employment.

I believe Doctors are currently the most subsidized degree in Alberta, ALL student spots are full, and even our Family Medicine residential spots in Calgary tend to fill up. Also, with how the system is run, I don't THINK its very feasible to tie a student spot to a specific residential spot given the resident system is Canada wide and may violate their procedures (doesn't mean it isn't possible however). Please correct me if wrong

So, the issue isn't the supply of people applying, it is the supply of education spots and desire to move to rural.

Following that logic, I would not be for your idea but instead continuing to increasing rates and benefits (such as fly in and fly out) in rural areas.

Or take the UCP approach and pick fights with Family doctors while ignoring the other specialties

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It takes 2-3 more years of education to become a doctor in N America compared with Europe. For no good reason that I can see.

So warning, slightly talking out of my ass here but... Well the dirty "secret' of our medical education is that our residents being paid "cheap" wages prevent our health care from going bankrupt. Hence why many specialties can't get jobs in places like Calgary as we perhaps train more then we need to decrease cost? This is why doctors moving abroad isn't an issue for me for most specialties.

So decreasing their education time may cost us a lot more. I also don't think it would help increase total doctors, I can't follow that logic.


Anyway, as I said, talking out of my ass, correct me if wrong.

[CliffFletcher]

It doesn’t seem like residency is the main culprit. Canada and the U.S. require a 4 year BA + 4 years of medical school, where most European countries combine that into a 6-year medicine program.

Spoiler!

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...doctor/622065/

It stands to reason that if the time and cost of schooling is a major barrier to practicing medicine, then reducing both by 25 per cent would increase the supply of physicians. Residency spots would have to be increased too.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Canada and the U.S. require a 4 year BA + 4 years of medical school, where most European countries combine that into a 6-year medicine program.


It stands to reason that if the time and cost of schooling is a major barrier to practicing medicine, then reducing both by 25 per cent would increase the supply of physicians. Residency spots would have to be increased too.

But... that isn't how math works?

Assuming all student spots are full (which I believe is correct)..

If I have a 8 year program at 100 students... every year I have 100 new doctors.
If I have a 6 year program at 100 students.... every year I have 100 new doctors

What am I missing that supports an argument that reducing education time will increase the supply of doctors?


BTW, Canada does NOT require a BA to get into medical school here. Its because of sheer demand of spots by applicants it becomes "necessary"- so its almost de-facto necessary but this supports my point, reducing the time changes nothing when we have more then enough applicants.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mull

But... that isn't how math works?

Assuming all student spots are full (which I believe is correct)..

If I have a 5 year program at 100 students... every year I have 100 new doctors.
If I have a 3 year program at 100 students.... every year I have 100 new doctors

What am I missing that supports an argument that reducing education time will increase the supply of doctors?

I’m assuming we would also increase student spots. It’s clear now the freeze on expanding medical school seats imposed in the 80s was a huge mistake.

The status quo is heading towards catastrophe. Root and branch reform at all levels will be required just to maintain our current health care capacity as the population ages, let alone improving the system by putting more resources into mental health, etc.

[Mull]

Remove increasing spots from the discussion unless you think you can increase spots enough to out pace demand for said spots- is that what your saying?

I don't think you can but don't have stats to support me but they turn down a crap load of good applicants each year.

Anyway, Canada does NOT require a BA to get into medical school, from what you posted we are like Europe. Most people just need a BA because of the demand.

Decreasing schooling times doesn't increase doctors, and as far as I understand, there is not way to decrease schooling time beyond what we have, aside from increasing spots by what I assume is a massive amount.


I am for increasing spots- my point is our education duration has NO bearing on the quantity of doctors.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Exact same position as Pierre Polievre and the Federal Conservatives.

Bull####?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Bull####?

Well Conservatives love a good conspiracy theory. It is the backbone of their movement.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mull

Remove increasing spots from the discussion unless you think you can increase spots enough to out pace demand for said spots- is that what your saying?

I don't think you can but don't have stats to support me but they turn down a crap load of good applicants each year.

Anyway, Canada does NOT require a BA to get into medical school, from what you posted we are like Europe. Most people just need a BA because of the demand.

Decreasing schooling times doesn't increase doctors, and as far as I understand, there is not way to decrease schooling time beyond what we have, aside from increasing spots by what I assume is a massive amount.


I am for increasing spots- my point is our education duration has NO bearing on the quantity of doctors.

Ignoring whether it’s technically feasible and assuming they don’t retire earlier if you decrease schooling by two years you would increase career length by two years which would increase the number of doctors. If careers went from 40 to 42 years that would be a 5% increase in supply. (I think they just retire earlier)

[Mull]

I think that math checks out GGG but my guess is the 5% supply increase would turn into a rounding error from the retirement factor.



And even if it doesn't, a second point was that a BA isn't required here, so I don't know where you reduced the years- a BA is only requried to pump up your resume due to high demand of spots.
You could propose a system where people get right into medical school from high school, therefore eliminating the benefits of a BA on the resume when applying but:

a) this would cancel out allowance from those who grew older and mature and decided to apply (like the old age of 25......) - you would need an allowance for these people (which may be done already not sure) instead of allowing them to use their experience as a factor

b) you would have less mature people jumping in with less life experience-is it really great we are "fixing" the system by reducing the value of more schooling


I don't know how to quantify these concerns.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

Ignoring whether it’s technically feasible and assuming they don’t retire earlier if you decrease schooling by two years you would increase career length by two years which would increase the number of doctors. If careers went from 40 to 42 years that would be a 5% increase in supply. (I think they just retire earlier)

2 fewer years of accumulating student debt could have various unforeseen consequences, too. Some might retire even earlier, others may not work as many hours, etc.

U of Calgary med school only takes 3 years instead of 4...because they don't take summers off. IIRC they are the only school in Canada that does it this way...it seems really dumb that others don't.

Also IIRC, some people will get in after ~3 yrs of undergrad and not necessarily finish their bachelors.

[Johnny Makarov]

Dr. Heehaw got almost $600k in 2021. I hope she fixed Kenney's syphillis problem..

Pays to tow the UCP line. Don't and you get fired like Verna Yiu.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...onuses-in-2021

[GirlySports]

yeah, this looks good when there's wage freezes elsewhere for Alberta government workers.