willy Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 My concern is that BC is still cutting and closing beds while the economy is growing. If funding is your concern, you can stop worrying. They have added 3 billion in spending in the last 3 years. The health system here is a real mess but it is a historical mess that has been in the making for 20 years. To change the system the different units will have to work together and they seem to not be able to do that. The BCMA can't even talk on behalf of their members. The nurses are too militant to cooperate. The health regions are too bureaucratic. (Resist change and focus on process and ass covering, may also tend to empire build) What do you suggest to fix this wonderful mess? More money wont do it. I am serious when I say look into the Alberta model. They took years building up trust and partnerships but the government, regions, and physicians are working to change the model. They are moving to a primary delivery model. This is not just about money, contrary to popular belief that right wing government spends more per cap on health than any other province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted August 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Willy, I actually agree on many of your points but I still think that funding is a problem especially in smaller communities where they keep saying insufficient funds is the cause of service cutbacks. I am not sure about the military nature of nurses. My sense is that many perform doctor duties and the dr. simply comes by to supervise. I just spoke to a close friend about nursing in Alberta. She says they are adequately paid, but work hours are difficult and the job stressful. I am sure everyone knows how the US is recruiting our nurses and offering to pay off any outstanding student loans. I wonder if such a scheme should/could be implemented to keep our nurses at home (considering the gov't did pay a substantial portion of their tuition). I cannot blame people for being attracted by these offers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Now Klein is trying to fix things up for the Seniors. He's also widening Highway 2. He's also going to give the farmers 300 million dollars. (Instead of you know, using it for capital for expanding capacity here in Alberta.) There's an election comming. And Albertans really are that stupid to be bought with their own money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 20, 2004 Report Share Posted August 20, 2004 don't call anyone stupid, Albertans don't realize that we are being bought with their own money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Same thing here in BC. Election coming in May. Now Campbell is trying to buy his way back into our good graces. Not mine!!!!!!!!! I have no short or long time memory loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 22, 2004 Report Share Posted August 22, 2004 Most people have short term and long term memory loss. Like when Paul Martin said he would put more money into health care, people didn't remember that he was the finance minister that took all the money out of health care. I remembered it, but I couldn't vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Apples and oranges. I read in the newspaper today that Oil is going to stay above 40 dollars forever. I couldn't stop laughing. It's like 1997 all over again. Sigh. They don't learn in this province. We're swimming in the money, and Klein et al can't see past their beer gut little though past the election at the future. It's sad. With a Con government, you expect them to barge into your life and make personal choices for you. And you expect them to actually manage money properly, you know? They deliever on the first expectation, but they absolutely fail on the second one. And what's worse, you get the cons on these boards who come out of the woodwork to defend the wreckless spending, and defend government intervention into people's lives. While accusing the federal Liberals of doing the same. (gun control, taxes, corruption.) Sad.Grim.Pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 With a Con government, you expect them to barge into your life and make personal choices for you I don't, I would expect that with a socialist, left wing government........after all........Freedom is Slavery right? And what's worse, you get the cons on these boards who come out of the woodwork to defend the wreckless spending, and defend government intervention into people's lives. Do you have a couple of examples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Anything that any Con has written about Mulroney's economic policies. (Defending the deficit.) No, I think cons are worse when it comes to making personal choices for people. You can't buy sex toys in Alabama or Missouri or some other Christian-Taliban enclave. They're trying to ban the displaying of thongs in Louisianna (sic). The abortion debate. The marriage debate. Calgary City Bylaws with respect to anything. (Talk about autocratic...even the Library violates the noise laws) Movie censorship (decency.) Video game censorship. Television censorship (though, I have strong new anti-liberal impulses with respect to hate laws. Curious how that works.) There are multiple Liberal Party examples...but you expect that sort of thing from them. The point is: you don't expect it from Cons like Klein, Harper, Ramsey et al, and the fact that they turn around and do it with a straight face DOES in face make it worse. They're supposed to be all about individual rights and individial choice. Why is it that they're always trampling on those choices when they get in power, merely because it suits them. Isn't that supposed to be the domain of Liberals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 You can't buy sex toys in Alabama or Missouri or some other Christian-Taliban enclave. Are the majority of the people in Alabama or Missouri demanding that they should be allowed to purchase sex toys? They're trying to ban the displaying of thongs in Louisianna (sic). Never heard that one.........I be in favor of a ban on overweight, hairy men wearing them mind you The abortion debate. Trying to protect unborn life that can't protect itself. The marriage debate. I assume you mean gay marriage.............protecting the beleifs of those they represent.........Did you see Bush on Larry King.........has no prob with gay union (no MS, not that type of Union) Calgary City Bylaws with respect to anything. (Talk about autocratic...even the Library violates the noise laws) Are the majority demanding the bylaws be changed? Movie censorship (decency.)Video game censorship. Television censorship (though, I have strong new anti-liberal impulses with respect to hate laws. Curious how that works.) Protecting youth. I still fail to see where true Conservatives are trying to "control the masses" or where a Conservative minded voter wante his or her government to overbear onto them...........it's a Commie thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 See, you're legitimizing government making decisions for people. Let's start with video game/movie censorship, which you label as 'protecting children'. Alright, why not give parents the right to control what their children watch. Ooops, they already got that right. So, what happened to personal responsiblity? Abortion: What happened to personal choice? Marriage: What happened to personal choice? Sex Toys: What happened to personal choice. (If 51 percent don't want to use sex toys, that's their choice, why should they have any say as to what other people do in their homes?) Thongs: What happened to personal choice? So, what happened to personal choice and personal responsibility? Doesn't society function better if government just 'gets out of the way?" I get it now: you're only fine with personal choice so long as it's a personal choice that YOU agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 I get it now: you're only fine with personal choice so long as it's a personal choice that YOU agree with. No, I believe in a Democratic choice and if the majority is for or against something, that is what should stand. All I want of government is for them, for the most part, to carry out the people's will, and if 51% don't like sex toys on moral grounds, so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idealisttotheend Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Strong support for gun control legislation So if 51% of people support banning guns it would be acceptable (this could easily happen with urban areas being highly anti-gun)? In fact that's a great example since Urbanites tend to dislike guns but they are better liked in rural areas. Majority rule will let urbanites impose their will on the rural people even though their circumstances are very different. This is acceptable Stoker? Furthermore, what if 51.2% of people support banning guns on Monday and only 49.8% support banning them on Thursday. Ought the law be constantly changed on controversial issues to reflect changing opinions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Of course urban people like to ban guns because mor murders happen in urban areas. In rural areas there is hunting so poeple that don't want to ban guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 All I want of government is for them, for the most part, to carry out the people's will, and if 51% don't like sex toys on moral grounds, so be it. If indeed 51% of Cdns are against sex toys, then maybe this is not such a bad idea after all. We could create a specially trained sex toy police unit aided by appropriately trained German Sheppards to invade people's homes when it is suspected that they possess such contraband. We could call them the "Dildo Squad". We could then get hookers off the streets because they would have rewarding employment teaching officers of the evils of such devices and how they are frequently used. Of course, police would have to remember that strip searches should not be conducted because these people might actually enjoy them. Handcuffs would NEVER EVER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Oops...my last post was entered incomplete, but I think you get the idea. The only thing I was going to add was that Jack Layton might be able to convince the gov't to include an amnesty period pleading with people to return their "blow-up" dolls to their local police station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 People can do what they want when it comes to sex toys, but the post topic, is Ralph Klien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 True enough BBM. Just couldn't resist. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 How much are his health preminums for those who pay them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 In Alberta, single coverage is $44/month while families pay $88/month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Is that alot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Given the average salary in Alberta, this is quite small (for most people). I realize that this might be a lot for some folks working minimum wage. Subsidies are also available, but the threshold is quite low. I think that the problem with premiums is that you pay all of this tax money to begin with, and then you still have to pay a premium and then there is talk of a user-fee? Why not just have it part of the tax system to begin with? A premium also does not "slide" based on income. For most families $1056.00 per year is not that much, but for some it is high and it is not fair that a person making say 100G a year pays the same as someone who makes say 20G's per year. For the most part, though, they anger me because they are inconvenient. I say, just charge people when they do their income taxes once a year. That seems to be more efficient, convenient and economical wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Should there be a floating preminum, so the more you make the more you pay. I don't think so, I think everyone should pay the same for the preminum, just because you make more doesn't mean you should pay more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 I don't think (I could be wrong here) that the price is too hefty considering how small the fee is and how vital is the service. The PC government has said many times that they would never allow an Albertan to be refused service due to an inability to pay premiums. They have also said that they have never come across such a situation. Maybe many will believe that I am naiive here, but I actually believe them. Personal experiential knowledge tells me that they are far more flexible on this matter than in BC. It would sure be nice if it could be paid once a year on our income taxes. It seems redundant and expensive to pay for health care in several ways rather than in one centralized fashion. In order to collect the $$$, they have to set up another gov't department which then needs to take some of this $$ in order to exist. Having said this, premiums do not really affect me personally because my employer pays it and that is not uncommon for many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Would you prefer the preminum or higher income taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.