Ex-NDP MLA David Schreck reveals Christy Clark's willingness to give up federal health funding

Comments

I'm a frequent listener to Sean Leslie's weekend talk-radio show on CKNW. I especially enjoy the regular appearances by former NDP MLA David Schreck on the program.

Unlike some other political commentators on radio—such as Moe Sihota and Suzanne Anton—I never get the feeling that Schreck's primary purpose on the air is to spread propaganda on behalf of the party he supports.

Today, Schreck surprised me again with something I hadn't heard before.

It concerned the federal government's announcement earlier this year that it would reduce the size of annual increases in transfer payments for health care to the provinces.

This would result in $250 million less per year flowing into the provincial treasury via the Canada Health Transfer.

According to Schreck, Premier Christy Clark said at the time that this was acceptable to her provided that Ottawa adjusted payments according to the age of the population. (It's worth noting that Clark also hasn't criticized the prime minister's crime legislation, which will impose higher costs on provincial taxpayers to build more prisons.)

Clark called for age-adjusted health transfers because B.C. has more seniors per capita than other provinces. The implication was that if this change were made, B.C. would be far better off financially.

Schreck, a health economist, decided to test this by filing access requests. But in its response, the government obliterated how much an age-adjusted approach would bring into the province.

On CKNW today, Schreck explained that he was still able to figure it out because the government left the formula on the document. He was bright enough to do the math.

In the end, Schreck concluded that the B.C. government would recover an additional $96 million per year in federal funding with an age-adjusted formula under the Harper government's plan.

In other words, Schreck noted, the premier of the province has said that she supports a federal plan that would have reduced health-care transfers to our province by $154 million per year.

"The next time Clark represents B.C. in high stakes negotiations, she needs to be accompanied by staff who are thoroughly briefed on the file," Schreck wrote on his blog.

For more of Schreck's original take on B.C. politics, check out his strategic thoughts website.

Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.

Comments (10) Add New Comment
bdubblut
Puts a whole new spin on Mark Twains 'The Prince and the Pauper'.
0
0
Rating: 0
ds
Maybe she's still into the POT. First she gave up a large chunk of cash with the renaming B.C. Place and now this. Can't figure this lady out.
0
0
Rating: 0
glen p robbins
Suzanne Anton and Moe Sihota? Don't assume they know what they are doing.
0
0
Rating: 0
Ron S.
Well she never made it out of any university she attended. I guess she just couldn't figure out how many years it takes to graduate.
0
0
Rating: 0
NoLeftNutter
The new language of the left - "We're getting less of an increase in the future therefore, we're getting a cut". The simple truth is that we will get substantially more money in real terms after 2017 than we currently get. That's not a cut.
0
0
Rating: 0
NoRightNutters
The only language of the right is never tell the truth and deny everything even that less isn't more and cuts like a knife as health scare is not important to BC Liberals who made a deal with the Conservatives to show how to really bleed people of their democracy and their health and their self worth.
0
0
Rating: 0
john billstrom
hey no left nut. a $154 million dollar cut is a cut even before being inflation adjusted. read the text before commenting if you know how to read.
0
0
Rating: 0
NoLeftNutter
John - here's a quote from the article - "It concerned the federal government's announcement earlier this year that it would reduce the size of annual increases in transfer payments for health care to the provinces."

Perhaps you need to understand the issue before you comment. Or is English your third language?
0
0
Rating: 0
it is an indication of things to come
Nuts to you noleftnutter and give it up don't you get it people don't want the BS they want healthcare not healthscare which is pretty much what it is like in a BC hospital where you wonder when going for surgery will I live through the hospital stay never mind the surgery. Why would you want to justify taking away money that is so desperately needed to keep any kinds of standards and save lives not kill people because your hospitals are covered in shit.
0
0
Rating: 0
Please, Please, Please
NoLeftNutter
"Perhaps you need to understand the issue before you comment. Or is English your third language? "

This is pretty rich coming from someone who demonstrably does not understand the concept of "nominal" and "real" dollar amounts as evidenced by their comments.
0
0
Rating: 0
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.