I don’t think that all medical premiums go to health care, much like ICBC premiums don’t go to ICBC, they all seem to go the the pet project of the government of the day and they they moan and groan how much money they are losing…
leave the funds where they are supposed to go and they won’t have to moan and groan, except that their pet projects will have to find funds…moan on government

If they were proposing that we charge for usage I’d be first in line to sign.

I pay mine…

But he is okay with a carbon tax and it’s bureaucracy with no evidence of any effect what so ever, except to make him a hero with the organic wine and cheese crowd.

I will pay mine and you can’t make me move to Ontario or any other Place just to save on MSP!

BC Government website on MSP Premiums.

In B.C. premiums are payable for MSP coverage and are based on family size and income.

Effective January 1, 2015, monthly rates are $72.00 for one person, $130.50 for a family of two and $144.00 for a family of three or more. These rates are for people with an Adjusted Net Income Over $30,000.00 .

No mention made in the story about people with a Adjusted Net Income between $0-$22000 not paying any premiums.

Between $22,001-26000 $25.60–$46.40–$51.20
Between $26,001-28000 $38.40–$69.60–$76.80
Between $28,001-30,000 $51.20–$92.80–$102.40

Nor is their any mention that many employers pay the premiums for their employee’s, who then have to claim these payments as income and pay tax on them, however it means that a lot of people get their MSP for approx. one third of what the average wage earner over $30,000.00 per year pays.

I would suggest that all Government workers, ie; Federal, Provincial, Regional, and Municipal, School Teachers, etc; get their premiums paid by their employer, ie; the Government, or to put it differently the taxpayer.

So we should probably look at the whole structure of MSP Premiums before we go off on an tangent about the premiums.

Just got my T4A and box 118 (medical premium benefits) is 1264.02 for 2014 (105.34 per month). Being single this must include a tax on life insurance or dental or other benefits through work?

And if it had the actual cost of health care on your t4a you would really hit the roof.

Hartly2 Premiums for a single person earning over $30,000.00 per year for 2014 were $69.25 per month or, $831.00 per annum. The balance as you say would probably be for dental, and life insurance. In any event they are taxable benefits.

The Federal Government transferred $5.8 Billion to BC in 2014-2015 for Health Care. Add to this the $2.2 Billion collected by the BC Government, throw in another Billion from gambling money and we start to see some serious money.

Where does it all go???

Thank you Mr. Fry . You are part of the solution.

Interesting. A pro business policy from the Greens.

One thing we know for sure is that the BC liberals are all about regressive taxation that targets the low to middle income earners and those on fixed incomes.

Whether it be the incessant increases in ‘user fees’, the misguided HST scheme, carbon taxes, MSP…. Or even to a lesser extent the tax cuts to corporations paid for through things like increased tuition. The BC liberals are about trickle down economics with the bottom responsible for all the tax revenue.

I agree with the Green Party in that MSP as it is set up is enter rentals regressive and a much fairer way would be as a line item on ones income tax…. Maybe a ten percent tax on the amount of income tax owing would be a more fair progressive way of going about it.

Darn auto correct… Not sure where ‘enter rentals’ came from in my post… Funny iPod Inguess.

Not surprising at all . The Green Party is the home of intellectuals . It’s not left as the cons proclaim . It’s not left as the NDP proclaims . It’s the party of common sense . The Green Party is the party of jobs . Sustainable jobs . This is what you get when one elects on merit rather than some jingoistic halfwit .

God help us all if the likes of Andrew Weaver were ever put in charge of anything. The Greens are the most phoney of all the political Parties we’ve been cursed with. Even worse than the NDP, and that takes some doing.

One of their strong advocates where we are writes long tracts in the letters-to-the-editor column of the local paper on how we have to save the environment. One of her favorite rants is we should never cut any ‘ancient forests’. Then when she needs some work done on her own house and sends her carpenter down to get some lumber at our mill she always tells him, “… make sure you pick all through the lumber piles and take only the pieces that are ‘old growth’ ~ I don’t want any of that ‘coarse grained’ second growth stuff”! Just like the socialists, all for ‘socialising’ everyone else’s property, but if the government ever did the same with anything of their’s they’d come at it from the right of Attilla the Hen!

That atilla the hen is one scary bird , yikes . Who are you talking about ? The writer of those rants I mean ? Or are just making that up ? There’s no need to get apoplectic about the Green Party . It’s just a baby here . A baby that roars . It’s not going to take power yet but it’s keeping an eye on the ball .

“The Green Party is the party of jobs. Sustainable jobs.”
———————————————————————-
That’s their problem, ataloss. They pervert a mere ‘means’ to an ‘end’, (which is all any ‘job’ can ever be), into an ‘end’ in itself. In that they’re no different from all the other Parties, except their method of approach to the common policy is to make everything as inefficient and costly as possible.

That’s just silly . It’s a minor player .so just forget about it . I’m surprised you even care . What about that woman writer you are defaming ? Are you not going to tell us who she is ?

And I don’t know why you are not treating the green the same way cc is . You know hoping to divide the left and conquer . Makes no sense you slagging the greens . You should be their biggest fan . It’s like you are slagging against your own self interest . If so that’s just goofy.

Posted on Sunday, February 8, 2015 @ 3:50 PM by Ataloss

And I don’t know why you are not treating the green the same way cc is . You know hoping to divide the left and conquer . Makes no sense you slagging the greens . You should be their biggest fan . It’s like you are slagging against your own self interest . If so that’s just goofy.

———

I still don’t know what the Green’s platform is? There’s not a whole lot of substance on their website.

ataloss, do we really need to have 100% of the workforce working to provide 100% of all the various goods and services we require and desire?

Or can we do that quite easily with substantially less than 100% full employment?

Officially, there’s always around 5 or 6% unemployment, sometimes substantially more in some areas, but hardly anywhere substantially less. Unofficially, the percentage is believed to be considerably higher than 5 or 6%. Some seem to feel at least twice that, or even more.

Yet there’s no evidence of which I’m aware that indicates there’s very real shortages of anything as a result of that. The store shelves seem to be all well stocked. Whether it’s groceries, clothing, housewares, or any other items. Building supply outlets have lots of lumber, plywood, OSB, concrete products, gyproc, etc., etc. Car dealers lots of new inventory on their lots. Even those who sell ‘green’ products, like bicycles, for instance, hardly bereft of stock.

But we don’t hear of the Green Parties, anywhere they exist in the world, recognising this FACT.

Nowhere do those of the supposedly superior intellects admit that we have solved the ‘production’ problem long ago ~ that, physically at least, we can MORE than supply 100% of all our consumptive needs and desires with far LESS than 100% of the available workforce actually working.

That the larger problem facing us to day is not the age old one of impending scarcity, where famine stalked every land and mankind hung onto its very material existence by the skin of its eyelids, but rather one now of how to dispose of an unsaleable glut of almost every type of good imaginable.

Do the Greens ever admit that the solution to this problem is NOT ‘more’ employment, adding still ‘more’ to this unsaleable glut? Which, if they are going to continue to insist that no one should ever receive an income unless they have first worked for it, can only grow larger to the point where the only thing to be done with it is to literally ‘waste it’? Because otherwise ‘full employment’ cannot be maintained. They do NOT!

If they said, “We will credit everyone in the country with sufficient purchasing power separate from anything earned from employment so that the amount of money collectively available to the public as ‘incomes’ was equal to the total collective amount of ‘prices’ of all goods and services made and available for final consumption over any same given time period,” we, as consumers, would be able to afford to buy and FULLY PAY FOR what we have made FROM what we have made. Without having to do so, as we’re doing now, or trying to, increasingly unsuccessfully, FROM WHAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE. Where we make ever more product not to have product, but merely as an excuse to pay someone an income.

Essentially, ataloss, this is no different to trying to solve the so-called unemployment problem by giving anyone unemployed a pick and shovel and a bare piece of earth and telling him to dig a hole. And when he’s down as deep as he can go safely, climb out of it and fill it in again. And then just repeat the process. Ad infinitum. Nothing particularly useful was accomplished by all this digging and refilling, anymore than anything useful is accomplished in making more product than can be sold for the cost of its making as recoverable through price. But we have ’employed’ someone. Surely one would think those of such superior intellect would desire a better end for their fellow man than to reduce him to a drudge? But perhaps those like Andrew Weaver are too busy with ‘more important’ considerations to worry about such lesser beings.

Okay , you and your party are against full employment and you assume that the Green Party platform is full employment . Never assume anything ever . Can we end this now , please ?

@axman I don’t have enough time or patience to write down the Green Party platform . You’re a bright guy . Im sure you will dig up what you need . Andrew is only an email away and so is the local Green Party . Go on treat yourself . It will tickle your little grey cells .