u/peterAtheist

My wife was just informed we will be receiving a bill for my child's surgery today. Her Alberta Health Care has expired. You read that correct it expired. She had surgery 3 months ago and all was good. Today we were informed we would have to pay out of pocket for today's surgery. The system says her health care has expired. Shes born here BTW. You see this amazing new drivers liscense we get also includes you AHC and they will both expire every 5 years. My daughter has a valid AHC from birth and a Valid Alberta ID that expires in 2030. Until than her AHC has no official expiry. Guess not. Auntie Danny decided it has expired. You can now pay for surgery. Hospital told me to phone AHC. Unfortunately they are experiencing higher than normal calls and suggest I call back some other time and hang up. My Daughter has been told by the hospital to take it up with the registry.

Good Job UCP. UCP = Clowns and thier voters.

***** Edit Update ***** just wanted to thank everyone for the support. To the few who think " there is more to this story " there really isn't. I'm not leaving out anything. My wife and daughter are at the hospital talking to staff who said this IS a new issue coming to light.

The hospital staff are AWSOME and its not them. This is 100% a UCP issue make no mistake

I " mostly " posted so it brings light sooner than later to the issue for prevention of this happening to others and a bit to yes Rage because this is what your supporting with the UCP. This party doesn't even support Canadian Conservative values. It's Wild Rose 2.0

2222 Edit #2 2222

We don't have a bill but we were sent home with a document we are responsible for the cost unless we manage to clear the issue up. I'd post a pic with with blacked out info but I don't see how to post pics here. I googled how and it says sometimes you cant post pics ? I cant figure out how to sorry.

The letter start likes this :

Patient Financial Agreement This Patient Financial Agreement (“Agreement”) applies to patients who receive healthcare services at an approved hospital or facility without valid provincial health coverage or for goods & services not covered under a provincial health care plan (“Healthcare Services”). A patient who receives Healthcare Services shall pay a fee in accordance with a schedule of fees approved by the Minister according to the Hospitalization Benefits Regulation or Ministerial Order, as updated from time to time. Rights under this Agreement are in addition to rights of each party under applicable law. In this Agreement, a. “Hospital” means any one or more of Alberta Health Services, Carewest, Capital Care Group, Alberta Precision Laboratories Ltd., Covenant Health and Lamont Health Care Centre, which provide care to the Patient; and b. “Health Professional” means one or more physicians and other healthcare workers who provide care to the Patient.

EDIT #3

Please see the update made by my wife on this whole situation. Large_Time_8661 previously Adorable_Name6528

Come pickup a sign at urgent care Okotoks from 10am until noon.

Saturday Aug 8 2026

With silent UCP approval. Hey Mike Ellis (Minister Public Safety) why did you condemn the police for asking the public to report hate?

https://preview.redd.it/8554sehruthh1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=e9b4d10d4edbc3ac5bbe12ebad8fcad6435cde47

#ForeverCanadian #ChooseUnity #Okotoks Free lawn signs in Okotoks! Pick yours up August 8, 10 AM – 12 PM at Okotoks Health and Wellness Centre. 

RSVP for yours  https://forcan.ca/ZSVQ

#ForeverCanadian #ChooseUnity #Okotoks

I have CC'd my MP, John Barlow, the NDP, the Tory Party, and the Alberta Liberal Party (because why the hell not?!)

Original email, sent June 28, 2026.

>Dear MLA Sigurdson,

>I am a constituent in your riding, and I work in a public library. My role puts me in direct contact with library users and community outreach. My coworkers and I are library users ourselves, allowing us to see both sides of the desk. Through my work, I have a firsthand understanding of how public libraries operate according to professional standards, local governance, intellectual freedom, and user privacy. Those principles are not abstract ideals; they are the foundation of the trust our communities place in us. Libraries are one of the few public institutions where every Albertan is welcome regardless of age, income, education, politics, or religion.

>We succeed because communities trust us.

>Every day, we are entrusted to protect the privacy of our patrons. One of the foundational principles of public libraries is that people should be able to borrow books, access information, and explore ideas without worrying that their reading habits will become subject to unnecessary government oversight or administrative tracking. Bill 28 moves us away from that long-standing principle by creating the possibility of age-based restrictions, inspections, and future compliance requirements that remain undefined.

>What concerns me most is not only what Bill 28 contains, but what it leaves unanswered.

>The bill asks Albertans to replace trust with provincial oversight, future regulations that have not yet been written, and inspection powers whose scope remains uncertain.

>Bill 28 transfers decision-making away from locally governed library boards and trained library professionals and instead concentrates that authority in the office of a single minister through regulations that have not yet been written.

>The bill grants the Minister authority to determine, through future regulations, which materials may be restricted by age. It provides no definition of restricted material, no explanation of how age verification would occur, no clarification regarding digital collections or third-party lending services, no indication of how patron privacy will be protected, and no funding to implement these changes.

>Alberta's public libraries have repeatedly been asked to do more with fewer resources. It is difficult to reconcile years of financial restraint with legislation that creates a new inspection and enforcement framework while providing no additional funding for libraries to comply with it.

>Beyond these regulatory powers, the bill also grants inspectors authority to enter every public library service point in Alberta, inspect collections and publicly accessible spaces, examine board records, question employees, and recommend whatever orders the Minister considers appropriate.

>That represents a significant transfer of authority from locally governed library boards to the provincial government.

>Equally concerning is the new offence provision making it illegal to obstruct an inspector. The legislation provides no meaningful explanation of what constitutes obstruction. As an employee, I cannot confidently determine where the line exists between complying with an inspector, fulfilling my professional obligations, and protecting a patron's privacy. Legislation creating an offence should define those boundaries clearly enough that ordinary employees understand their legal obligations.

>Public libraries have served Albertans well for decades because decisions are made by locally appointed boards, informed by professional standards and the needs of the communities they serve.

>Bill 28 fundamentally changes that relationship.

>I cannot support legislation that weakens local governance, erodes intellectual freedom, and places the privacy of library users at greater risk.

>I urge you to oppose Bill 28 or, at the very least, advocate for significant amendments that restore local authority, clearly define inspection powers, protect patron privacy, and ensure any future restrictions are subject to transparent public consultation.

>I would appreciate knowing your position on these concerns and whether you intend to support amendments addressing them.

Their response, June 29, 2026. They misspelled my name.

>Hello [Naem].

>Thank you for writing to the office of MLA RJ Sigurdson about Bill 28, the Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. We appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns.

>Public libraries are important community spaces that serve Albertans of all ages. As they are publicly funded and shared environments, government has a responsibility to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place for children. The proposed changes related to libraries are focused on limiting unsupervised access by minors to explicit visual depictions of sexual acts. They do not require the removal of books or restrict what libraries may carry.

>Bill 28 enables clearer ministerial oversight and allows for province‑wide standards to support age‑appropriate access to materials, while leaving collection decisions with local library boards. Future regulatory changes being considered would ensure children aged 15 and under do not independently access materials with explicit visual sexual content without parental or guardian permission. Possible measures include controlled access through staff, physical separation of explicit materials, and parental permission for independent borrowing.

>These steps are intended to align public library standards with those already in place in school libraries and to provide consistency across Alberta. Non‑binding guidelines will be developed in consultation with libraries and subject‑matter experts, and boards will have until January 1, 2027, to meet any new requirements.

>Our government supports the important role libraries play in our communities while also respecting parental expectations and the need for age‑appropriate access for children.

>Thank you again for reaching out.

My response, sent August 2, 2026. I made sure to spell her name correctly. Trust me: I wanted to be petty.

>Good evening [Name],

>Thank you for your response and thank you for explaining the government’s objectives. I do understand those objectives, but my original concerns relate to how Bill 28 will be implemented in practice and the clarity of the obligations it creates for libraries and library employees. I would appreciate clarification on three specific questions:

>1. What is the definition of “sexually explicit”?

>Without a clear definition, it is difficult for library staff and boards to understand what materials would be subject to future restrictions. As it stands, the definition has largely gone unspecified.

>For example, would anatomy textbooks, sexual health resources, or illustrated medical references fall within the proposed definition? These distinctions matter because library staff will ultimately be responsible for applying whatever standards are adopted.

>2. Will the Government of Alberta provide dedicated funding to public libraries for the implementation of Bill 28?

>Complying with Bill 28 could require renovations, staffing changes, the reorganization of collections, and updates to library systems or technology. If the Government of Alberta will not be providing dedicated funding, is the expectation that libraries absorb these costs within existing or future budgets?

>3. How is “obstruction” defined?

>As someone who works in a public library, I need to understand not only what the legislation requires of me, but also what conduct could expose me to legal liability.

>Bill 28 creates an offence for obstructing an inspector, yet the legislation does not define what conduct constitutes obstruction. Could you clarify whether the government intends to define this term through regulation or guidance? As a library employee, I need to understand where the line exists between complying with an inspector, protecting patron privacy, and fulfilling my professional obligations.

>Because Bill 28 creates legal obligations for library employees, I would appreciate clarification on these questions before any future regulations are implemented. I look forward to your response.

Btw, the Tory Party has been invested. No one else has responded, but man, the Tory Party has let me know they're listening!

We are trying to get that status and are being declined because "saving horses from slaughter" is not 'good' enough of a reason...

Please PM me the name of the organization if there is one, thank you.

We are trying to get that status and are being declined because "saving horses from slaughter" is not 'good' enough of a reason...

Please PM me the name of the organization if there is one, thank you.

We are trying to get that status and are being declined because "saving horses from slaughter" is not 'good' enough of a reason...

Please PM me the name of the organization if there is one, thank you.

Looking at the recent Edmonton storm news, on top of all the crazy weather they’ve already had this summer, plus seeing all the wildfire smoke southwest of us on the map... I can’t help but feel like we’re getting really lucky again this year. Hopefully, I didn't just jinx it!

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/forecasts/record-breaking-edmonton-summer-faces-another-storm-threat-canada-rain-lightning

https://firesmoke.ca/forecasts/current/

https://preview.redd.it/65qj50cgldgh1.png?width=1870&format=png&auto=webp&s=24ae647b454f39074b643256ec6e702192a329e2