With less than one month until the Alberta election, party platforms will use the 2023 provincial budget as a starting point, further risking the spread of generational tensions.
Since our government programs do not focus on prevention, healthy eating, a sustainable population or getting exercise, by the time we are seniors our health problems and health costs are out of control. As a senior myself, I am so disappointed with the way our government promotes a meat and dairy diet, rather than a plant based diet, and spends so little funding on exercise programs. Naturally, this failure results in increased health problems as well as a reduced quality of life. Let's tell the government to stop subsidizing the meat and dairy industry, reduce our population density stress, and start promoting an active lifestyle.
Those are interesting, practical ideas indeed Val. And what health science shows is that people's decisions/patterns regarding diet and exercise are in turn shaped fundamentally by their incomes, the affordability of their housing, access to child care, climate change and more. So we need to move our dialogue about what shapes our health even further upstream if we want to improve the downstream illnesses we ask doctors and nurses to treat.
Most people over 65 have more pressing needs than the under 45....they also may not be working so have no access to funds...They also have more chance of illness..
my understanding of your complaint is that people over 65 do not deserve that care, even if they have no financial access to it on their own..It appears you would like people over 65 to go find jobs and pay their own way.
most people under 45 have employment...
many over 65 do not...and do not always have access to large pensions either..
I am 74 and rely on my pension..which barely covers my needs...I also have rheumatoid arthritis which makes my medical needs greater..
I feel as if you would rather toss me, and those like me, aside in order to benefit those under 45..
I'm sorry you felt that way after reading our analysis. Because we absolutely do NOT want to toss you aside, nor any other older members of our families and communities. Quite the opposite, we want our provincial and federal budgets to work well, and invest fairly, for all generations.
Here are key findings we emphasized from our analysis of the Alberta budget -- a budget that shapes all party platforms put on offer in this provincial election:
Alberta spends more on its retirees than do the BC and Ontario governments. Despite this, the Alberta government doesn't buy better health outcomes than those provinces. So it begs questions about whether medical care spending in Alberta is less efficient than in the other populous English-speaking provinces.
Alberta has a bigger gap in spending between younger and older residents than do BC and Alberta? Why? Is this intentional? Is it buying good outcomes for all generations?
Why does Alberta spends less per resident under age 45 for grade school than does Ontario? And why does it spend less per younger person for postsecondary than in BC?
Asking these questions in no way implies that our provincial government should not serve well our aging family and community members. It does imply that we should pay attention to the age pattern in public finance, just as we should pay attention to gender gaps, racial caps, gaps due to colonization, etc.
Do take care, and we wish you the best in managing the challenges that come with rheumatoid arthritis. Best,
Since our government programs do not focus on prevention, healthy eating, a sustainable population or getting exercise, by the time we are seniors our health problems and health costs are out of control. As a senior myself, I am so disappointed with the way our government promotes a meat and dairy diet, rather than a plant based diet, and spends so little funding on exercise programs. Naturally, this failure results in increased health problems as well as a reduced quality of life. Let's tell the government to stop subsidizing the meat and dairy industry, reduce our population density stress, and start promoting an active lifestyle.
Val Allen
Alberta
Those are interesting, practical ideas indeed Val. And what health science shows is that people's decisions/patterns regarding diet and exercise are in turn shaped fundamentally by their incomes, the affordability of their housing, access to child care, climate change and more. So we need to move our dialogue about what shapes our health even further upstream if we want to improve the downstream illnesses we ask doctors and nurses to treat.
Most people over 65 have more pressing needs than the under 45....they also may not be working so have no access to funds...They also have more chance of illness..
my understanding of your complaint is that people over 65 do not deserve that care, even if they have no financial access to it on their own..It appears you would like people over 65 to go find jobs and pay their own way.
most people under 45 have employment...
many over 65 do not...and do not always have access to large pensions either..
I am 74 and rely on my pension..which barely covers my needs...I also have rheumatoid arthritis which makes my medical needs greater..
I feel as if you would rather toss me, and those like me, aside in order to benefit those under 45..
Hello Mary Ann,
I'm sorry you felt that way after reading our analysis. Because we absolutely do NOT want to toss you aside, nor any other older members of our families and communities. Quite the opposite, we want our provincial and federal budgets to work well, and invest fairly, for all generations.
Here are key findings we emphasized from our analysis of the Alberta budget -- a budget that shapes all party platforms put on offer in this provincial election:
Alberta spends more on its retirees than do the BC and Ontario governments. Despite this, the Alberta government doesn't buy better health outcomes than those provinces. So it begs questions about whether medical care spending in Alberta is less efficient than in the other populous English-speaking provinces.
Alberta has a bigger gap in spending between younger and older residents than do BC and Alberta? Why? Is this intentional? Is it buying good outcomes for all generations?
Why does Alberta spends less per resident under age 45 for grade school than does Ontario? And why does it spend less per younger person for postsecondary than in BC?
Asking these questions in no way implies that our provincial government should not serve well our aging family and community members. It does imply that we should pay attention to the age pattern in public finance, just as we should pay attention to gender gaps, racial caps, gaps due to colonization, etc.
Do take care, and we wish you the best in managing the challenges that come with rheumatoid arthritis. Best,
Paul