Connect with us

Alberta

No Matter Which Formula, Albertans Win With An Alberta Pension Plan

Published

6 minute read

From the Alberta Institute

Guest Post By Lindsay Wilson

Opponents of the Alberta Pension Plan (APP) have wasted no time busting out the pitchforks, with their legacy media lapdogs hard at work toeing the line for the union big wigs and their NDP friends.

It’s merely weeks into the launch of a province-wide public consultation to educate and get feedback from Albertans on an APP and there is no shortage of Trudeau-funded media penning pieces laden with misinformation.

They’re pushing a fear-based narrative that has seniors running scared and reasonable people questioning whether the bold move isn’t a little selfish which is no different than what Quebec has been doing — quite successfully — since day one.

For us here at Alberta Proud, we not only think opting out of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing an APP is a great idea — it’s a critical step toward more Alberta autonomy.

If we don’t, will we ever achieve much of anything in the arena of autonomy? Think about it: if we can’t win a referendum on the one thing we don’t need permission from Ottawa to do, where does that leave us?

More Alberta and Less Ottawa isn’t just a pie in the sky for us at Alberta Proud. It’s our mantra.

We genuinely believe enough is enough. It’s time for Ottawa to take a hike, including their antiquated equalization formula that you voted 62% in favour of scrapping.

We now have an opportunity to leave the CPP, in favour of a made-in-Alberta plan which must offer the same or better benefits.  And it will, without question, put more money into your pocket every year as we finally won’t be overcontributing.

The newest twist in the anti-APP narrative is casting doubt on the formula the independent, government-commissioned LifeWorks report produced: that 53% of the CPP assets ($334 billion) would be owed to Alberta.

By switching to an APP, that translates to putting an additional $1,425 back into each employee’s pocket, according to LifeWorks, and when you consider the employer’s contribution, that amount is effectively doubled.

That’s a huge incentive for Alberta employers, those coming here to work and for the majority of hard-working everyday people who are drowning in this era of inflation (or #justinflation as we like to call it at Alberta Proud).

Meanwhile in the mainstream media, economist Trevor Tombe is balking at the math, claiming Albertans will be owed around one-third of what LifeWorks has assessed.

While it may seem odd everyone is arriving at different numbers, here is the kicker: even if we leave with only 17% (among the lower estimates floating around and not the 25% estimated by Tombe or the 53% estimated by LifeWorks) it’s still a better deal for Albertans.

But how, you ask?  Simply put, we would finally get a break from this hidden transfer program, which is yet another way in which hardworking Albertans subsidize the rest of the country.

We have a comparatively younger population and because of this, we have paid more than we have collected. It has always been this way for us, and it doesn’t look like that will change. In the past year, a record 185,000 new Albertans moved here to work and take advantage of our low taxes and abundant opportunities. Any way you slice it, our contribution rate would fall.

Another concern is around who will manage an APP.

While the opposition is quick to point out CPP investment returns have been decent and that an APP would be best not left in the hands of AIMCo, did you know we could very well use the same pension fund manager as the CPP or another arms-length, third party?

By putting Alberta first, you will not risk your pension.

By switching to an APP, you will put more money in your pocket.

Ottawa has long turned its back on Albertans and continues to hit us with eco-radical regulations that will leave us broke and freezing in the dark. If we stay in the CPP, we are sending them a message that they can keep pushing us around, forever, no matter what they do to us.

It’s time for a change.

So, take a moment to fill out the Alberta government survey.

Send emails to your MLA, Finance Minister Nate Horner and Premier Danielle Smith.  Show up to the townhalls.

Alberta’s future of more autonomy depends on all of us getting loud and Alberta Proud!

Lindsay Wilson is the President of Alberta Proud, a group of citizens concerned about Alberta’s future within Canada.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.

First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.

Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.

In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.

For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.

Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.

Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.

And what of those theoretical drawbacks?

Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.

Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.

And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.

Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.

A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.

The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.

In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.

The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X