Ralph Klein has gone and it is time to retire Ralph's World. Thanks to all of you who have supported this venture by contributing material and through your comments. It has been fun.

Should we get another blog underway? Let me know your thoughts by e-mailing me at johnnyslow@gmail.com.

John Slow
January 1, 2007

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Devon Debate Question 3 - Full response 

Question for All Candidates:

The Provincial “Regulation of the seniors’ Benefit plan” is a 13 page convoluted document while the “Implementation Policy Manual” of this same regulation is 60 pages of convoluted data and escape routes. Government has a lack of policy which obliges them to deal with seniors on a one on one basis, which they do!

It is used more to strip seniors of any advantages Seniors may have accumulated in their life than it is to help them through their senior years.

On June 17, 2003 a news release was put out by the Alberta Government headed up “Long-term care accommodations rate changes to improve services.” A 12.00 per day figure was added to semi private rooms to improve living standards. In the case of Capital Health and Zetter, two prominent centers in Edmonton, the funds were used to offset depreciation, which they already claimed as a loss! There were no improvements to the standard of living.

The Alberta Government confirmed the 12.00 per day was actually a confiscation figure. It was arrived at by assessing how much could be lifted from a low income senior’s pocket while leaving them with 265.00 per month spending money. The answer was 12.00! 'Something for the Government to be proud of.

Matters of dignity: A surviving senior who has a spouse forced into long term care because of Alzheimer or similar will receive less money per month than will a single person! They are often forced into separation or even divorce for survival under Alberta’s application of these regulations.

Repeated requests to be returned to 1994 coverage for seniors has simply been ignored.

This isn’t about universality! The 4% of the senior population with adequate incomes would not argue against paying what they can. The remaining 96% of seniors have very serious issues.

Inequities are great and many!

A seniors advocate office has always been needed, now more than ever. An advocate would have the chance to invoke change, and command investigation not dissimilar to the Auditor General. Whereas an Ombudsman has only the very limited power of investigation on specific singular items.

Will your party support the formation of a seniors advocate office?

George Roberts - PC "I don't know" Was advised Conservatives already rejected it.
Joyce Assen Liberal - "Already a part of our policy; posted on the net"

Dave Dalke-Alliance - "Something is needed for sure"
Katie Oppen - ND "Yes! We support it."
Stephen Lindop - Green "Yes! We support it"
Karen Richert - Social Credit "Yes, We support it"

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?