Contact your MLAs and people you know who are UCP members and encourage them to vote against this nonsense at the annual general meeting. The following (flawed) rationale is offered for the resolution to embrace private finance...

First, a reminder to the government that healthcare isn't merely an "expense". It is an investment in a healthy and productive workforce.

Second, to suggest that drs are "upset" because there is "no more money" is inaccurate and disrespectful. I have yet to talk to a dr who doesn't acknowledge AB's fiscal issues. Anyone I've talked to is most "upset" about the government's heavy-handed and disrespectful treatment.

It is interesting to see someone acknowledge that "Patients are limited to treatment options as doctors threaten to leave" when the gov has denied that drs are leaving. The gov only has itself to blame for drs leaving.

This rationale neglects to consider the fact that other countries have struggled with a so-called "hybrid system" and regulating how drs spend their time in order to ensure adequate human resources in the public system.

Private insurance will not result in patients "divert[ing] themselves from public waitlist to the benefit of all patients." This statement suggests an ample supply of drs to treat private patients. How can this be reconciled with the acknowledgement that drs are leaving?

This statement sounds like a child wrote it: "People using Private Tier System...would effectively pay a user tax (fee for service) shifting some burden from the public tax revenue
to private payments."

If patients are merely paying a user fee and not the full cost of the service, the public system would still be paying the same amount. The patient would merely be paying on top of that.

Also, extra-billing/user fees are contrary to the Canada Health Act and would thus actually cost the province money in federal transfer payments. Just as BC, who lost over $32 million for allowing private clinics to extra bill.

"This could help the economy recover more efficiently by creating choices, for both physicians and patients, in time
and public costs to the Public Health System." Unclear what "choice" has to do with the economy. Evidence suggests this would not save the public system any $.