
That is absolutely true, Bear, BUT it could be dangerous to assume he is, also there is an old adage out there......."innocent until proven guilty", but even more important in this country people aren't generally punished by being denied access to the essentials of life.

That is absolutely true, Bear, BUT it could be dangerous to assume he is, also there is an old adage out there......."innocent until proven guilty", but even more important in this country people aren't generally punished by being denied access to the essentials of life.

That is absolutely true, Bear, BUT it could be dangerous to assume he is, also there is an old adage out there......."innocent until proven guilty", but even more important in this country people aren't generally punished by being denied access to the essentials of life.

You're making ' a dangerous assumption' also.
This is a WCB issue and assuming that he was covered by his employer, it has nothing to do with what province it happened in.
Further, there is the potential that he was acting as an independent contractor, in which case, one needs to ask the question of he had an up to date WCB account (required by law)... This is a very important consideration in this issue.

Agreed but when debating on a news item you can only debate what's reported. The man was put in a position of going hungry and that is wrong, S.S. is the last line of help they should have acted immediately and got things sorted out after the holidays.

Assuming something that was his fault is the only reason that the WCB could be a bunch of pricks. They are an insurance company like ever other.

I can understand your concerns.
But what do they do after the holidays if they find out he's merely squandered his income?

Agreed but when debating on a news item you can only debate what's reported.

The man was put in a position of going hungry and that is wrong, S.S. is the last line of help they should have acted immediately and got things sorted out after the holidays.

No, I meant that there is very little excuse for leaving this poor guy in need in a land of plenty. To play Devil's advocate, let's say he was guilty of squandering/fraud whatever, you still feed him and sort it out later. You can still throw him in jail but once he''s dead from starvation there's not much one can do!

I still don't get what the wealth of the province has to do with it. All people in all provinces should be covered. These programs are paid for, they're sitting right there. The program possesses no more or no less wealth for him to partake of simply because its in Alberta.
Yes, Karrie the same thing would apply if it happened in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick,

If he's not on WBC and not on AISH, were is he getting rent money from?
We aren't poor like BC either.

We are not that poor either, we were probably just as rich as you guys 20 years ago until the lumber industry went for a sh*t and the environmentalists got half the mines shut down!
As for the rent perhaps he's one of many who every month has to decide who gets paid, the grocer or the landlord.

First of all blaming the Alberta Government bureaucracy is not exactly the answer here.
A disagreement with Workers Comp is a different matter entirely, There is an over all
administration of regulation but not the running of the program by Government.
Workers Comp in Alberta as in other jurisdictions is agency financed and for the most
part administered by Employers who pay for the fund. His problem is with Workers Comp.
People involved with workers comp are not dealing with government.
In most cases one can apply to human resources for interim assistance but that does not
always work out it is based on individual cases.
Here is a situation that comes back to haunt some people.. Those who claim the governments
waste tax dollars. Government employees put workers comp cases to additional scrutiny as
they don't want double dipping either. People can't have it both ways, save money and down
grade programs and when there is not enough money howl that someone is being abused by
the system.
We don't know the whole story and what has transpired, or whether the applicant was entitled
to Workers Comp. We insist there are too many employees in these positions making too much
money and when they cut back people howl there is not enough service to activate and to
investigate claims. If there were enough experienced well paid people still on staff at Workers
Comp or in the Human Resources Ministry perhaps this case could have been dealt with in a
timely manner. Oh I suppose this is another left response, true but people wanted less government
and less bureaucracy and now they don't like the fact there is not enough people to do the job.
1 Is there something we don't know?
2 Did he qualify for coverage?
3 What were all the circumstances of the accident?
4 Who is ultimately responsible for handling the claim?
5 Are there too many or not enough people there to do the job?
6 When did he start looking for emergency funding?
That is the big one, anything centered around a Comp claim is going to hold up the claim for
quite a while.