This NDPer thinking of going PC.

[LollerBrader]

The appearance of WR and the death of Layton seem to have collectively shifted the politican spectrum "A notch to the right".

Not so bad though, I really like Redford: Keeping taxes the same, while increasing public services. It's a far fry from what I've come to expect from PCs - Which is usually to decrease taxes by cutting services.

There's no free lunch in life or poltics, and I find myself wondering what the tradeoff is.....

Thoughts?

[Graham_A_M]

After 40 years, I think we're well due for a change from the PC. I've always detested the Liberals (the NDP's aren't much better); and the PC's were a good choice for me. (being very right wing helps with that). Now I think we can use a practical change with the WR. Its a tough call, but I think the WR is more of what Alberta needs. Normally I'd go PC, but there are a lot of smaller things I agree with more with the WR then the PC. That and; Im getting fucking sick of the PC. :rofl:

[Maybelater]

If you're looking to offset the WRA vote then I can see why voting for PC makes sense. But that seems like a pretty big change to go from NDP to PC.

Although I am personally a little skeptical of Brian Mulcair and his 'modernization' plans.

[kertejud2]

I honestly don't know why Jack Layton would have any effect on why you'd vote for a provincial political party at all.

[Maybelater]

Originally posted by kertejud2
I honestly don't know why Jack Layton would have any effect on why you'd vote for a provincial political party at all.

Because the Alberta NDP is the provincial wing of the Federal NDP, thus, they are influenced by the internal politics of each other.

[st184]

I plan to vote WR.

[Khyron]

Dsmith is hot and smart but you have to look at who's pulling her strings and paying her way. Those debts will have to be paid back. Rob Anders and Erza Levant are right wing lunatics and they're firmly in her camp.

I agree that the WR has a nice sounding platform (we give you money back and lower taxes and lower spending all without lowering services).... And golden monkeys will fall out of my cereal box tomorrow...

[m10-power]

Originally posted by Khyron
I agree that the WR has a nice sounding platform (we give you money back and lower taxes and lower spending all without lowering services).... And golden monkeys will fall out of my cereal box tomorrow...

Not a hard concept when you look at how inefficient the government is in many departments. Health care system needs to have the management majorly streamlined.

Agreed that the PC's have shifted hard, a change is coming for sure, looking forward to what they will do. Hopefully they will drastically reduce the transfer payments out of this province for one.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Maybelater


Because the Alberta NDP is the provincial wing of the Federal NDP, thus, they are influenced by the internal politics of each other.

The 'connection' that the federal and provincial parties have has effectively only been for membership purposes since Tommy Douglas' days. The federal NDP's effect on the provincial party's is essentially nil and I'm surprised to see that people think there is.

[Maybelater]

Originally posted by kertejud2


The 'connection' that the federal and provincial parties have has effectively only been for membership purposes since Tommy Douglas' days. The federal NDP's effect on the provincial party's is essentially nil and I'm surprised to see that people think there is.

Interesting, I wasn't aware the affiliation was minimal.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Maybelater


Interesting, I wasn't aware the affiliation was minimal.

It's significant in the sense that they actually have an official affiliation between the federal party and provincial ones (they're the only party that has this which highlights the Alberta Liberals stupidity in keeping the name), but there's no general provincial guidelines. And that is lucky because even in Alberta the federal NDP's environmental and energy policies are not compatible with the provincial party's economic and social policy platforms. Such things also exist in BC and Saskatchewan (and Ontario) where the federal policies don't mesh well with the provincial realities. The federal and provincial parties will always be on a similar spectrum in their respective realms (as opposed to say the federal Liberals to the BC Liberals or Quebec Liberals or the Alberta PCs and the old federal PC party) but that tends to be where the similarities stop.

It mostly was an effective way for what was always an also-ran federal party to streamline their funding with their more successful provincial counterparts.

[Zero102]

Conscience rights were enough of a turn off for me, and I'm sick of PC leadership here so I suppose I'm stuck with either NDP or Liberal... I don't mind paying more taxes if we get something for it :dunno:

[Feruk]

I don't see any reason to pay more taxes or mess with the royalty regime, so Liberals and NDP are out. I think the PCs deserve to lose, but this conscience rights BS is throwing me off the WR. Not a fan of parties that don't see a problem with hate speech, which "conscience rights" basically are. If Danielle Smith had come out and straight up said she doesn't believe in them, she would've had my vote. One can assume it's just political ammunition, but not when the party leader doesn't come out and strongly detest it.

Undecided as neither the PCs or WR deserve power IMO.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Zero102
Conscience rights were enough of a turn off for me, and I'm sick of PC leadership here so I suppose I'm stuck with either NDP or Liberal... I don't mind paying more taxes if we get something for it :dunno:
Research the conscience rights some more. Everything that the PC party is using to scare people with in regards to conscience rights already exists. Doctors already have the right to refuse patients based on religious beliefs and moral views, it's in their code of conduct. Same with comissioners in regards to marriage. It's really a giant scare tactic that the PC's totally screwed up on (Redford speaking out against this "wildrose" policy stating this will never be allowed in her goverment when it already is and always has been allowed).

Don't let that be your deciding factor, it's essentially a non issue. The PC's are scared and are fighting dirtier by the day. Weeding out the few homophobic WR members to make a spectacle of while pretending their entire party is full of modern free minded candidates. *cough, cough* except Ted Morton (among others) *cough* (http://daveberta.blogspot.ca/2006/08/stop-ted-mortons-bill-208.html)

:facepalm:

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Khyron
Dsmith is hot...And that's where you lost me.

[Zero102]

Originally posted by Melinda

Research the conscience rights some more. Everything that the PC party is using to scare people with in regards to conscience rights already exists. Doctors already have the right to refuse patients based on religious beliefs and moral views, it's in their code of conduct. Same with comissioners in regards to marriage. It's really a giant scare tactic that the PC's totally screwed up on (Redford speaking out against this "wildrose" policy stating this will never be allowed in her goverment when it already is and always has been allowed).

Don't let that be your deciding factor, it's essentially a non issue. The PC's are scared and are fighting dirtier by the day. Weeding out the few homophobic WR members to make a spectacle of while pretending their entire party is full of modern free minded candidates. *cough, cough* except Ted Morton (among others) *cough* (http://daveberta.blogspot.ca/2006/08/stop-ted-mortons-bill-208.html)

:facepalm:

Sources on the conscience rights bit? I am definitely curious and want to learn more. I didn't think that doctors had the right to refuse patients based on religious beliefs.

[hampstor]

Originally posted by Zero102


Sources on the conscience rights bit? I am definitely curious and want to learn more. I didn't think that doctors had the right to refuse patients based on religious beliefs.



Moral or Religious Beliefs Affecting
Medical Care
Standard 26

(1) A physician must communicate clearly and promptly about any treatments or procedures the
physician chooses not to provide because of his or her moral or religious beliefs.
(2) A physician must not withhold information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because
providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs.
(3) A physician must not promote their own moral or religious beliefs when interacting with patients.
(4) When moral or religious beliefs prevent a physician from providing or offering access to information
about a legally available medical or surgical treatment or service, that physician must ensure that
the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered timely access to another physician or
resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.





http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/Libraries/Res_Standards_of_Practice/CPSA_Standards_of_Practice_Consolidated_Version.pdf

[thrasher22]

I never thought I'd vote conservative, but I'm going PC just to try and make sure the WR don't get in.

While Smith says she isn't anti-gay rights (okay fine), she supports the horrific things party members have said because “If we’re the only party that’s going to welcome people with strong religious views into our party, I’m happy with that,” Church <> State. End of story.

Their support of members with outright homophobic beliefs, their support of reopening Gazoo, the whole conscience rights thing, and their lack of distinction between the separation of church and state absolutely terrifies me. I love the idea of "freedom" as much as everyone else, but they don't seem to be able to make the distinction of when one person's freedom imposes on the the freedoms of others.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by hampstor
Moral or Religious Beliefs Affecting
Medical Care
Standard 26

...I could be wrong, partly because I haven't looked in detail at the Medical Standards, but if what you quoted is the full extent of the restrictions from the Medical Standards on this issue, it seems as though it's being left up to other bodies or pieces of legislation to determine the issue of whether or not it's okay to refuse treatment on moral/religious grounds, but if a physician ever gets in that situation (whether legally or illegally), this is what he/she must do to mitigate the possible harm to the patient.

In other words, it doesn't explicitly state that it's okay for a physician to refuse treatment for moral/religious reasons, does it?

[hampstor]

Originally posted by dexlargo
I could be wrong, partly because I haven't looked in detail at the Medical Standards, but if what you quoted is the full extent of the restrictions from the Medical Standards on this issue, it seems as though it's being left up to other bodies or pieces of legislation to determine the issue of whether or not it's okay to refuse treatment on moral/religious grounds, but if a physician ever gets in that situation (whether legally or illegally), this is what he/she must do to mitigate the possible harm to the patient.

In other words, it doesn't explicitly state that it's okay for a physician to refuse treatment for moral/religious reasons, does it?

I'm not sure about what you're asking in the first paragraph in your question - however I quoted the entire Section 26 related to Moral or Religious Beliefs affecting medical care. The question in the 2nd paragraph though I think is clear - yes they can though I'm unsure if there is a limit to how far they can go (ie: cases where refusal results in death).



(1) A physician must communicate clearly and promptly about any treatments or procedures the
physician chooses not to provide because of his or her moral or religious beliefs.

I have seen this happen first hand. About 10 yrs ago, I had a doctor refuse the morning after pill to a girl I was dating at the time. He cited that he didn't agree with abortions and told us to go to another clinic.

[Cos]

.

[dexlargo]

I was worried it might be too subtle a point - I definitely could have been clearer.

My point is that nowhere in that Medical Standard does it expressly authorize physicians to refuse any treatment on moral/religious grounds. It appears to deal with the situation where a physician has already decided that on moral/religious grounds that they are not going to provide a service. The Standard appears to be an effort to mitigate any harm flowing to the patient from that refusal.

If there is a law that applied to physicians, this Standard wouldn't create an exception.

I realize that a person might expect that if it wasn't okay that this Standard would be completely unnecessary, but it could be that the Medical Standard is just dealing with medical care issues, and leaving these value judgments up to other people/legislation.

I totally admit that I'm just throwing this out there, physicians may be okay to refuse, I'm suggesting that this isn't the authority for that.

You went through it, that's cool. But it doesn't mean that the physician was right to refuse the morning after pill necessarily, but having made that decision he followed the Standard, so won't get in trouble with the Medical Association.

Sorry for the hijack - back on point:

I normally align with the liberals in terms of values, but I will also hold my nose and vote PC because of the havoc I fear a WR government would wreak on Alberta.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Cos


+1 that is me. I wasnt really into the PC but after really researching the WR I am not happy. The biggest reason for me? Their stance on Education that they will eliminate fees but keep numbers up is retarded. The whole reason there are fees is because of years of mis-management. I know that the PCs were the ones who mis-managed it but that doesnt mean I want another party who will mis-manage it more.

That and there is a lot of discussion of church and religion from the WR which I am firmly against. And let's not forget that Danielle Smith was on the Calgary Board of Trustees several years ago and was the reason that the board had to be disbanded (the only time in its history that this has occured) - she was so obstructive and caused so many problems on the board (when she bothered to show up) that she singlehandedly prevented it from getting anything done. She says she's matured since then, but I'm not so sure.

Is that how our government will be? Danielle's way or don't do it at all? Scary...

And dismantling AHS? Everyone involved in healthcare says that while they didn't really like it coming in, they don't want it dismantled - they need stability, but does the WR party listen? Nope, they're pot-comitted now and can't show any 'weakness' in their policy. Chaos it is!

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by dexlargo

And dismantling AHS? Everyone involved in healthcare says that while they didn't really like it coming in, they don't want it dismantled - they need stability, but does the WR party listen? Nope, they're pot-comitted now and can't show any 'weakness' in their policy.

My sister is a RN, boy did we have a good political debate this weekend.

The fact is, that AHS is a mediocre solution. Bettering oneself is not always easy, and more often than not painful.

A lot of people hate on Ralph Klein for what him and the PC's did in the 90's. Ya, well it took a LOT of guts on his part to do what he did. And in the end, it made (IMO) Alberta a better place. Did it suck? YEP. Was anybody really happy about it? NOPE. But he did the responsible thing, something that not many politicians ever do.

Leaving AHS in place has it's benefits and consequences. I don't know if it has been given enough time to do it's thing, but not many people are "happy" with it and it doesn't seem to be working.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by dexlargo
And let's not forget that Danielle Smith was on the Calgary Board of Trustees several years ago and was the reason that the board had to be disbanded (the only time in its history that this has occured) - she was so obstructive and caused so many problems on the board (when she bothered to show up) that she singlehandedly prevented it from getting anything done. She says she's matured since then, but I'm not so sure.

Is that how our government will be? Danielle's way or don't do it at all? Scary...

And dismantling AHS? Everyone involved in healthcare says that while they didn't really like it coming in, they don't want it dismantled - they need stability, but does the WR party listen? Nope, they're pot-comitted now and can't show any 'weakness' in their policy. Chaos it is!

I've seen her type before. Sociopathic, egomaniac, perennial self-promoter. Arrogantly thinks she's going to "fix" everything through force of will, because she thinks she's smarter than everyone else who's gone before.

I compared some platform pamphlets last night. Danielle's is overly hopeful and comes with lots of fine print. Redfords seemed more realistic, along the lines of working-within-contstraints.

[phreezee]

-

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by LollerBrader


I've seen her type before. Sociopathic, egomaniac, perennial self-promoter. Arrogantly thinks she's going to &quot;fix&quot; everything through force of will, because she thinks she's smarter than everyone else who's gone before.



That's true for EVERYONE.

[Go4Long]

Every candidate thinks they're going to fix it...the ironic part is that no one comments on the fact that Redford thinks she can fix it...but she's already in power.

Like kept getting brought up and then avoided in the debate, she swears up and down about how great her budget was, then goes on about all the new funding she promised in the last few months, but doesn't mention the fact that the billions of dollars in additional spending has to come from somewhere, and her "balanced" budget didn't include any of it.

[st184]

I'm voting on healthcare because I work in it and it needs to be changed. All of you would be completely disgusted at the amount of money AHS blows while cutting wages and increasing turn over. Where I work, in AHS EMS, its completely out of control.

[rob the knob]

maybe
maybe since its is vote,

then tells us the stuff or we think you makeup stories



Originally posted by st184
I'm voting on healthcare because I work in it and it needs to be changed. All of you would be completely disgusted at the amount of money AHS blows while cutting wages and increasing turn over. Where I work, in AHS EMS, its completely out of control.