Canadian Health-Care per Doctors

[R. Richard]

The subject of Canadian health-care has come up several times in the AH. Here's what Canadian doctors think. Comment?

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

 

[amicus]

Thanks for the piece...but thought it was vague and generalized. I would so much like someone to address the issue of individual rights for both medical practitioners and patients, instead of 'the system', which seems to speak to a, 'cost/benefit' systemic approach.

It is, after all, people we are really talking about.

Amicus

 

[TE999]

The subject of Canadian health-care has come up several times in the AH. Here's what Canadian doctors think. Comment?

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

This is obviously some unfeeling, uncaring right wing propaganda promulgated by those 'un-American' rowdy protesters that have been disrupting town hall meetings and asking questions about the proposed Universal Health Care system that the politician's can't answer.

 

[Liar]

The subject of Canadian health-care has come up several times in the AH. Here's what Canadian doctors think. Comment?

Just one. Yeah they've got problems. Who doesn't?

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

...and part of the solution, accoring to this fella anyway is not to ax the public single payer insurance...

...but to introduce a "public option" on the health care provider side.

ETA: If I read that correctly. That was a bit confusing. I mean, isn't there private health care delivery up there now already?

 

[DeeZire]

R. R. - did you actually read the article you posted?

...He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

Very interesting - they're looking at public healthcare systems in Europe to see if they can get any ideas on how to improve their own system.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Sounds familiar to me. Isn't that part of Obama's plan, to improve information sharing technology? Is that a bad thing? Is it something to fear?

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

At least in Canada, they get to look at the evidence. In America, the evidence is shouted down by ignorant protesters who aren't interested in any stinkin' "evidence".

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

Another common issue - money. Obviously, if everyone in the country (theirs or ours) gets state of the art healthcare from birth to death, we could easily be looking at million dollar payouts for every man woman and child. (One quarter of all Medicare dollars are spent on the last six months of life. See the "Right to Die" thread.) Now, how do we go about paying for a million dollars worth of care for everyone? We don't. Or we do, but we do it with deficit spending. But at the same time we don't want to talk about rationing.

While many prefer the head-in-the-sand approach to the healthcare debate, I think it might be beneficial to us all if we could talk realistically about where we're heading. Silly me, thinking something like that could ever happen in Fox News country.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Fox has a plntiful number of Democrat guests and contributors. Virtually every segment of every program includes opposing viewpoints. Even Hillary goes on Fox, so I'm puzzled that the Usual Suspects and Bedwetters hate Fox.

 

[penandpaper]

No offense R.R., but we get your point. If I could summarize with one sentence: Obama's trying to overhaul our healthcare system and I don't like it. My advice, then vote for someone's plan you believe in. That's how the country is run. We are the wealthiest, one of the most democratic, law-abiding, non-corrupted societies to ever exist on this planet, past or present. And now, the fact that they're going to give healthcare to everyone, that's the straw that's going to break the camel's back? Give it a rest, will ya.

I can't understand why you don't want children, single mom's, working-poor, and single men not to have coverage. It makes no sense. If you think it costs too much, then start voting for someone who's going to cut the fucking military budget (which makes up for one half of our total spending!), then perhaps you won't be so upset when little Johnny breaks his leg riding a skateboard or little Sabah breaks her arm playing volleyball, and suddenly they don't get the care and therapy they need and have huge problems later in life.

 

[R. Richard]

No offense R.R., but we get your point. If I could summarize with one sentence: Obama's trying to overhaul our healthcare system and I don't like it. My advice, then vote for someone's plan you believe in. That's how the country is run. We are the wealthiest, one of the most democratic, law-abiding, non-corrupted societies to ever exist on this planet, past or present. And now, the fact that they're going to give healthcare to everyone, that's the straw that's going to break the camel's back? Give it a rest, will ya.

I can't understand why you don't want children, single mom's, working-poor, and single men not to have coverage. It makes no sense. If you think it costs too much, then start voting for someone who's going to cut the fucking military budget (which makes up for one half of our total spending!), then perhaps you won't be so upset when little Johnny breaks his leg riding a skateboard or little Sabah breaks her arm playing volleyball, and suddenly they don't get the care and therapy they need and have huge problems later in life.

The article I posted and the comments I made were ENTIRELY about the Canadian health care system. You then used my posting to deliver a screed about what you think I think about the US health care system.

 

[penandpaper]

The article I posted and the comments I made were ENTIRELY about the Canadian health care system. You then used my posting to deliver a screed about what you think I think about the US health care system.

I did this because I've read your other hundred rants about our system and how you think it's going down the wrong path. Forgive me for inferring about your motives, I was not aware that previous posts were instantly negated due to the "new thread" clause.

 

[R. Richard]

R. R. - did you actually read the article you posted?

Yes I did, infact I read the entire article andnot just to get isolated points.

Very interesting - they're looking at public healthcare systems in Europe to see if they can get any ideas on how to improve their own system.?

This is good.

Sounds familiar to me. Isn't that part of Obama's plan, to improve information sharing technology? Is that a bad thing? Is it something to fear??

The thing that most in this forum fear is government intervention in private lives. What is being described is government intervention in private lives.

At least in Canada, they get to look at the evidence. In America, the evidence is shouted down by ignorant protesters who aren't interested in any stinkin' "evidence".?

I wasn't aware the the protestors were ignorant. Is it only the protestors who are ignorant? It seems to me that the politicians who want to implement the healthcare system that has been proposed are ignorant of the CBO's analysis of the costs.

Another common issue - money. Obviously, if everyone in the country (theirs or ours) gets state of the art healthcare from birth to death, we could easily be looking at million dollar payouts for every man woman and child. (One quarter of all Medicare dollars are spent on the last six months of life. See the "Right to Die" thread.) Now, how do we go about paying for a million dollars worth of care for everyone? We don't. Or we do, but we do it with deficit spending. But at the same time we don't want to talk about rationing.

While many prefer the head-in-the-sand approach to the healthcare debate, I think it might be beneficial to us all if we could talk realistically about where we're heading. Silly me, thinking something like that could ever happen in Fox News country.

The entire health care debate in this country or in Canada eventually comes down to money. It would be nice if there were some system that would deliver health care to everyone at a reasonable price. However, it aint gonna happen. There are a lot of people who smoke cigarettes until they develop lung cancer and then they expect the taxpayers to pay for their care. There are a lot of fat slobs who suffer the almost inevitable late life effects of flab and then they expect the taxpayers to pay for their care. You want to talk realistically about things, start with the people who abuse themselves and then want the taxpayer to pay. [By the way, I'm overweight to the point of a dangerous BMI. However, the young Ahhhhnold was also overweight to the point of a dangerous BMI and for pretty much the same reason.]

 

[champagne1982]

The only reason it comes down to money is because health care is considered to be more expensive than it really is. The Canadian system is portrayed as nonsustainable simply because too many people need to use the Hospital-based clinics for primary care rather than seeing a family doc. We lose doctors to cities and University health care centres far too frequently and that has left the Canadian rural districts short of general practitioners.

When the balance of our doctors stop delivering acute care and shift focus to prevention based health maintenance, the costs of care will go down, since there will be fewer instances of emergent problems. Diseases and wounds that have been let go over time due to the fact that patients can't see a doctor in an office setting will need trauma intervention less frequently if patients don't need to resort to using the ER to get the health care intervention they need.

If you invite private health care into the system then yes, those who can afford it will pay to get it... I agree, just as long as I'm not asked to foot the bill when things go bad after Mr Rich Bastard jumps the line and winds up losing a leg.

 

[penandpaper]

The entire health care debate in this country or in Canada eventually comes down to money. It would be nice if there were some system that would deliver health care to everyone at a reasonable price. However, it aint gonna happen. There are a lot of people who smoke cigarettes until they develop lung cancer and then they expect the taxpayers to pay for their care. There are a lot of fat slobs who suffer the almost inevitable late life effects of flab and then they expect the taxpayers to pay for their care. You want to talk realistically about things, start with the people who abuse themselves and then want the taxpayer to pay. [By the way, I'm overweight to the point of a dangerous BMI. However, the young Ahhhhnold was also overweight to the point of a dangerous BMI and for pretty much the same reason.]

I agree with what you say here Richard. I think we differ in the fact that I believe we can pay for it. I also believe that it's possible to bring the cost of healthcare down. It may be a bit of naivete on my part, but I'll just consider that optimism.

 

[DeeZire]

I wasn't aware the the protestors were ignorant. Is it only the protestors who are ignorant? It seems to me that the politicians who want to implement the healthcare system that has been proposed are ignorant of the CBO's analysis of the costs.

The loud-mouthed protesters who are disrupting town hall meetings believe in the impending existence of "death panels." Death panels only exist in the minds of whackos such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. If this is not ignorance, what would you call it?

My understanding of the cost analysis is that the dems plan on adding 2% to the taxes paid by individuals netting over $300k per year. Are you inferring that they need to bump up the rate even higher - like maybe 4%? The horror!

Another factor alluded to by another poster is war spending. Why is it okay to go into deficit paying for Bush's wars, but not okay to go into deficit spending to protect the sanctity of human life in our own country? I mean, if you're against deficit spending, you don't get to choose when deficit spending is acceptable and when it isn't. Well, actually, you do get to choose, but the word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

Yet another point that puzzles me. After the paragraph about information technology, you alluded to government intrusion into our lives. Does this mean you don't want doctors to be able to access your medical files in a time of emergency? Perhaps, when patient records do become computerized, they'll give individuals an option, much like the DNR option, alerting doctors that if you end up in an emergency room somewhere, they are not allowed to access your records. Would that make you feel better?

It seems to me that we can either approach the health care discussion honestly, or we can succumb to fear. Considering that fear is the easy way out, is it any wonder the health care debate has turned into a shouting match?

 

[R. Richard]

The loud-mouthed protesters who are disrupting town hall meetings believe in the impending existence of "death panels." Death panels only exist in the minds of whackos such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. If this is not ignorance, what would you call it?

Ah then, you're one of the few who has read the entire 1,200 pages plus of the health care act and thus know what the precise ramifications are? I must tell you that I don't believe that you have read and discussed the entire 1,200 pages plus of the health care act with an experienced corporate lawyer. It would appear that you have defined yourself as ignorant.

My understanding of the cost analysis is that the dems plan on adding 2% to the taxes paid by individuals netting over $300k per year. Are you inferring that they need to bump up the rate even higher - like maybe 4%? The horror!

Let me tell you how high income earners work, with a few exception. They hire high priced tax advisers and they pay, maybe a tax rate of 25%. If it gets much over 25%, they relocate. The exceptions are a few po' boys or girls who make it big in sports or show biz while still very young and inexperienced and they actually pay the posted rates. If you think that the 'surtax' is actually gonna work, then you can explain to me why the idea has failed again and again.

Another factor alluded to by another poster is war spending. Why is it okay to go into deficit paying for Bush's wars, but not okay to go into deficit spending to protect the sanctity of human life in our own country? I mean, if you're against deficit spending, you don't get to choose when deficit spending is acceptable and when it isn't. Well, actually, you do get to choose, but the word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

Don't look at me. I was a professional military man. I know how to finance a war, without going into deficit spending. However, the wimps who run governments tend to choke when they get to the idea of selling the women of the losing side into slavery. [In general, the men have so little commercvial value that the costs eat up the profits.] By the way, "Bush's wars" are now being conducted by Obama, but Obama's deficits don't seem to matter to the left.

Yet another point that puzzles me. After the paragraph about information technology, you alluded to government intrusion into our lives. Does this mean you don't want doctors to be able to access your medical files in a time of emergency? Perhaps, when patient records do become computerized, they'll give individuals an option, much like the DNR option, alerting doctors that if you end up in an emergency room somewhere, they are not allowed to access your records. Would that make you feel better?

No, it wouldn't make me feel better. If you will read my post, I alluded to government intrusion into the lives of many of you in this forum. I listened while several individuals had a hissy fit over the posssibility that Bush might find out that they bought Lust And Filth, by Madam X from the book store [way overrated, by the way.] Apparently, at least some of the same people have no problem with Obama starting a national ID program, just if Bush tried it. I'm already in several government data bases, for reasons that are none of your business, unless you're a government agent, in which case, fuck you spy.

It seems to me that we can either approach the health care discussion honestly, or we can succumb to fear. Considering that fear is the easy way out, is it any wonder the health care debate has turned into a shouting match?

Let's start with the facts, Obama dumped a 1,200 page healthcare version of Mein Kampf on Congress with, basically, no chance for review. Then, several members of Congress kicked up a fuss and the shouting match was on. Some of the members of Congress who kicked up a fuss were Democrats. Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi et al. then quietly and calmly got the Blue Dogs in a room and told them something like, "My way or over the side of the lifeboat." However, there were too many rebels and there was danger that the lifeboat might tip over.

Now, there are several of the original healthcare provisions out of the bill, or so I've been told. Those subtractions weren't due to a public shouting match, far from it. The subtractions were due to back room political deals. You apparently believe and so does Obama, that a 2% or 4% surtax on the rich will pay for Obama's entire health care program. The Congressional Budget Office begs to differ. The CBO is a non-political group, whose charter is to determine things like how much will the healthcare package cost.

You want discussion? OK, let's start with Social Security. The gummint boys done started this here program gonna take care a yo' when yo' gets old. The Congress then looted the SS fund. Now, the CBO tells us that SS gonna have to start taking money from the general fund in a few years, instead of putting money in. In any case, the CBO says SS gonna go bust. Why isn't the same thing gonna happen with healthcare?

 

[amicus]

First off, for Champagne1982, 'preventive care' will actually increase the cost of healthcare as it has in Japan and elsewhere simply because there are insufficient medical personnel to provide the services.

DeeZire...Nice attempt to call the American public ignorant and misinformed about a healthcare bill over a thousand pages long that few politicians have even read to this day.

It is the Acorn people, the public employees unions and the DNC who are true believers, dogmatic followers of nationalized health care that are misinformed and managed, bussed and instructed.

Some pundits are saying that the 'public option' was never an option, merely rhetoric to keep the far left involved. What is being said now is that a, 'cooperative' insurance plan was the goal all along to get the camel's nose in the tent and then expand it into full fledged socialized medicine.

Americans are fully aware of the failure of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare, Medicade, Amtrak, the US Post office, all bankrupt and losing money each year and they want nothing to do with government run healthcare as the track record for government run entities is poor indeed.

You appear quite willing to turn over your health concerns to a government board, normal American's are fully informed and are determined to keep health care decisions in their hands, not the Beltway.

Amicus

 

[DeeZire]

Now, there are several of the original healthcare provisions out of the bill, or so I've been told.

So, if I'm relying on reasoned dicsussion from knowledgable sources to find out about what's in the healthcare bill I'm ignorant, but when you find out about what's not in the healthcare bill according to "I've been told" you're not ignorant?

I see.

Bye now.

 

[amicus]

DeeZire...perhaps if you take into consideration that fact that there is no basic outline for nationalizing American Health care, you might understand the Chicago style politics of the labor loaded left.

The House bill was floated like a balloon, to see how it would fly. It didn't; acted more like a lead balloon instead.

The Senate has not released a single word of what a Senate bill might include. It is called, 'buying a pig in a poke', and your misinformed, ignorant Americans who popped up all over the place, don't do business that way.

Obama wanted to be remembered as the 'father' of socialized medicine in America. He is likely to get no bill at all and likely also to be a one hit wonder.

Both this administration and the far left in general, over-reached and did so far too quickly and finally displayed their intents openly before the public and they don't like the smell of it. Not one little bit.

Amicus

 

[Xelebes]

ETA: If I read that correctly. That was a bit confusing. I mean, isn't there private health care delivery up there now already?

For what services? Dental and drugs?

 

[R. Richard]

So, if I'm relying on reasoned dicsussion from knowledgable sources to find out about what's in the healthcare bill I'm ignorant, but when you find out about what's not in the healthcare bill according to "I've been told" you're not ignorant?

I see.

Bye now.

As Amicus so neatly pointed out, "I'm relying on reasoned dicsussion [sic] from knowledgable sources to find out about what's in the healthcare bill" really means, "I'm listening to smooth rhetoric."

I too have read the smooth rhetoric. However, that's just what I've been told.

As a gift to a fellow member of Literotica, I'll give you the R. Richard political lie detector, "If a politician's lips are moving and sound is coming out, the politician is lying."

 

[jomar]

This is what the article on Canada said: In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

I need to go a town hall meeting to see what's really going on because I thought Obama was simply talking about there being a role for public health-care among the private system.

Though I must say I winced when he said free enterprise (UPS, FedEx) is kicking ass against USPS. Not an endorsement for government run programs, seems to me.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The subject of Canadian health-care has come up several times in the AH. Here's what Canadian doctors think. Comment?

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

I read a similar a article where she said that the system was about to 'implode'.

Kinda says it all in that one word.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The loud-mouthed protesters who are disrupting town hall meetings believe in the impending existence of "death panels." Death panels only exist in the minds of whackos such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. If this is not ignorance, what would you call it?

My understanding of the cost analysis is that the dems plan on adding 2% to the taxes paid by individuals netting over $300k per year. Are you inferring that they need to bump up the rate even higher - like maybe 4%? The horror!

Another factor alluded to by another poster is war spending. Why is it okay to go into deficit paying for Bush's wars, but not okay to go into deficit spending to protect the sanctity of human life in our own country? I mean, if you're against deficit spending, you don't get to choose when deficit spending is acceptable and when it isn't. Well, actually, you do get to choose, but the word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

Yet another point that puzzles me. After the paragraph about information technology, you alluded to government intrusion into our lives. Does this mean you don't want doctors to be able to access your medical files in a time of emergency? Perhaps, when patient records do become computerized, they'll give individuals an option, much like the DNR option, alerting doctors that if you end up in an emergency room somewhere, they are not allowed to access your records. Would that make you feel better?

It seems to me that we can either approach the health care discussion honestly, or we can succumb to fear. Considering that fear is the easy way out, is it any wonder the health care debate has turned into a shouting match?

A fictional meeting at a fictional company about impending tax increases...

Transcript of remarks made by Leo Carrington (who doesn't exist) to a mandatory meeting of all employees of Carrington Automotive Enterprises, Inc. (which doesn't exist either) on August 17th, 2009 at the Royal Payne Hotel (a purely imaginary place) in Norfolk, Virginia (which does, in fact, exist).

I would like to start by thanking you for attending this meeting, though it's not like you had much of a choice. After all, attendance was mandatory. I'm also glad many of you accepted my invitation to your family members to be here as well. I have a few remarks to make to all of you, and then we'll retire to the ballroom for a great lunch and some employee awards.

I felt that this meeting was important enough to close all 12 of our tire and automotive shops today so that you could be here. To reassure you, everybody is being paid for the day --- except me. Since our stores are closed we're making no money. That economic loss is mine to sustain. Carrington Automotive has 157 full time employees and around 30 additional part-timers. All of you are here. I thank you for that.

When you walked into this auditorium you were handed a rather thick 78-page document. Many of you have already taken a peek. You were probably surprised to see that it's my personal tax return for 2008. Those of you who are adept at reading these tax returns will see that last year my taxable income was $534,000.00. Now I'm sure this seems rather high to many of you. So ... let's talk about this tax return.

Carrington Automotive Enterprises is what we call a Sub-S - a Subchapter S corporation. The name comes from a particular part of our tax code. Sub-S status means that the income from all 12 of our stores is reported on my personal tax return. Businesses that report their income on the owner's personal tax return are referred to as "small businesses." So, you see now that this $534,000 is really the total taxable income - the total combined profit from all 12 of our stores. That works out to an average of a bit over $44,000 per store.

Why did I feel it important for you to see my actual 2008 tax return? Well, there's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around today about taxes, small businesses and rich people. To the people in charge in Washington right now I'm a wealthy American making over a half-million dollars a year. Most Americans would agree: I'm just another rich guy; after all ... I had over a half-million in income last year, right? In this room we know that the reality is that I'm a small business owner who runs 12 retail establishments and employs 187 people. Now here's something that shouldn't surprise you, but it will: Just under 100 percent ... make that 99.7 percent of all employers in this countries are small businesses, just like ours. Every one of these businesses reports their income on a personal income tax return. You need to understand that small businesses like ours are responsible for about 80 percent of all private sector jobs in this country, and about 70 percent of all jobs that have been created over the past year. You also need to know that when you hear some politician talking about rich people who earn over $200,000 or $500,000 a year, they're talking about the people who create the jobs.

The people who are now running the show in Washington have been talking for months about raising taxes on wealthy Americans. I already know that in two years my federal income taxes are going to go up by about 4.5 percent. That happens when Obama and the Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. When my taxes climb by 4.5 percent the Democrats will be on television saying that this really isn't a tax increase. They'll explain that the Bush tax cuts have expired .. nothing more. Here at Carrington we'll know that almost 5% has been taken right off of our bottom line. And that means it will be coming off your bottom line.

Numbers are boring, I know ... but let's talk a bit more about that $534,000. That's the money that was left last year from company revenues after I paid all of the salaries and expenses of running this business. Now I could have kept every penny of that for myself, but that would have left us with nothing to grow our business, to attract new customers and to hire new employees. You're aware that we've been talking about opening new stores in Virginia Beach and Newport News. To do that I will have to buy or lease property, construct a building and purchase inventory. I also have to hire additional people to work in those stores. These people wouldn't immediately be earning their pay. So, where do you think the money for all of this comes from? Right out of our profits .. right out of that $534,000. I need to advertise to bring customers in, especially in these tough times. Where do you think that money comes from? Oh sure, I can count it as an expense when I file my next income tax return .. but for right now that comes from either current revenues or last year's profits. Revenues right now aren't all that hot ... so do the math. A good effective advertising campaign might cost us more than $300,000.

Is this all starting to come together for you now?

Right now the Democrats are pushing a nationalized health care plan that, depending on who's doing the talking, will add anywhere from another two percent to an additional 4.6 percent to my taxes. If I add a few more stores, which I would like to do, and if the economy improves, my taxable income ... our business income ... could go over one million dollars! If that happens the Democrats have yet another tax waiting, another five percent plus! I've really lost tract of all of the new government programs the Democrats and President Obama are proposing that they claim they will be able to finance with new taxes on what they call "wealthy Americans."

And while we're talking about health care, let me explain something else to you. I understand that possibly your biggest complaint with our company is that we don't provide you with health insurance. That is because as your employer I believe that it is my responsibility to provide you with a safe workplace and a fair wage and to do all that I can to preserve and grow this company that provides us all with income. I no more have a responsibility to provide you with health insurance than I do with life, auto or homeowner's insurance. As you know, I have periodically invited agents for health insurance companies here to provide you with information on private health insurance plans. The Democrats are proposing to levy yet another tax against Carrington in the amount of 8 percent of my payroll as a penalty for not providing you with health insurance. You should know that if they do this I will be reducing every person's salary or hourly wage by that same 8 percent. This will not be done to put any more money in my pocket. It will be done to make sure that I don't suffer financially from the Democrat's efforts to place our healthcare under the control of the federal government. It is your health, not mine. It is your healthcare, not mine. These are your expenses, not mine. If you think I'm wrong about all this, I would sure love to hear your reasoning.

Try to understand what I'm telling you here. Those people that Obama and the Democrats call "wealthy Americans" are, in very large part, America's small business owners. I'm one of them. You have the evidence, and surely you don't think that the owner of a bunch of tire stores is anything special. That $534,000 figure on my income tax return puts me squarely in Democrat crosshairs when it comes to tax increases.

Let's be clear about this ... crystal clear. Any federal tax increase on me is going to cost you money, not me. Any new taxes on Carrington Automotive will be new taxes that you, or the people I don't hire to staff the new stores I won't be building, will be paying. Do you understand what I'm telling you? You've heard about things rolling downhill, right? Fine .. then you need to know that taxes, like that other stuff, roll downhill. Now you and I may understand that you are not among those that the Democrats call "wealthy Americans," but when this "tax the rich" thing comes down you are going to be standing at the bottom of the mud slide, if you get my drift. That's life in the big city, my friends ... where elections have consequences.

You know our economy is very weak right now. I've pledged to get us through this without layoffs or cuts in your wages and benefits. It's too bad the politicians can't get us through this without attacking our profits. To insure our survival I have to take a substantial portion of that $534,000 and set it aside for unexpected expenses and a worsening economy. Trouble is, the government is eyeing that money too ... and they have the guns. If they want it, they can take it.

I don't want to make this too long. There's a great lunch waiting for us all. But you need to understand what's happening here. I've worked hard for 23 years to create this business. There were many years where I couldn't take a penny in income because every dollar was being dedicated to expanding the business. There were tough times when it took every dollar of revenues to replenish our inventory and cover your paychecks. During those times I earned nothing. If you want to see those tax returns, just let me know.

OK .. I know I'm repeating myself here. I don't hire stupid people, and you are probably getting it now. So let me just ramble for a few more minutes.

Most Americans don't realize that when the Democrats talk about raising taxes on people making more than $250 thousand a year, they're talking about raising taxes on small businesses. The U.S. Treasury Department says that six out of every ten individuals in this country with incomes of more than $280,000 are actually small business owners. About one-half of the income in this country that would be subject to these increased taxes is from small businesses like ours. Depending on how many of these wonderful new taxes the Democrats manage to pass, this company could see its tax burden increase by as much as $60,000. Perhaps more.

I know a lot of you voted for President Obama. A lot of you voted for Democrats across the board. Whether you voted out of support for some specific policies, or because you liked his slogans, you need to learn one very valuable lesson from this election. Elections have consequences. You might have thought it would be cool to have a president who looks like you; or a president who is young, has a buff bod, and speaks eloquently when there's a teleprompter in the neighborhood. Maybe you liked his promises to tax the rich. Maybe you believed his promise not to raise taxes on people earning less than a certain amount. Maybe you actually bought into his promise to cut taxes on millions of Americans who actually don't pay income taxes in the first place. Whatever the reason .. your vote had consequences; and here they are.

Bottom line? I'm not taking this hit alone. As soon as the Democrats manage to get their tax increases on the books, I'm going to take steps to make sure that my family isn't affected. When you own the business, that is what you're allowed to do. I built this business over a period of 23 years, and I'm not going to see my family suffer because we have a president and a congress who think that wealth is distributed rather than earned. Any additional taxes, of whatever description, that President Obama and the Democrats inflict on this business will come straight out of any funds I have set aside for expansion or pay and benefit increases. Any plans I might have had to hire additional employees for new stores will be put aside. Any plans for raises for the people I now have working for me will be shelved. Year-end bonuses might well be eliminated. That may sound rough, but that's the reality.

You're going to continue to hear a lot of anti-wealth rhetoric out there from the media and from the left. You can chose to believe what you wish .. .but when it comes to Carrington Automotive you will know the truth. The books are open to any of you at any time. I have nothing to hide. I would hope that other small business owners out there would hold meetings like this one, but I know it won't happen that often. One of the lessons to be learned here is that taxes ... all taxes ... and all regulatory costs that are placed on businesses anywhere in this country, will eventually be passed right on down to individuals; individuals such as yourself. This hasn't been about admonishing anyone and it hasn't been about issuing threats. This is part of the education you should have received in the government schools, but didn't. Class is now dismissed.

Let's eat.

 

[Pure]

a simple question for amicus and other geezers:

are you accepting medicare benefits? social security? who runs these?

see the bolded statement below.


ami said It is the Acorn people, the public employees unions and the DNC who are true believers, dogmatic followers of nationalized health care that are misinformed and managed, bussed and instructed.

Some pundits are saying that the 'public option' was never an option, merely rhetoric to keep the far left involved. What is being said now is that a, 'cooperative' insurance plan was the goal all along to get the camel's nose in the tent and then expand it into full fledged socialized medicine.

Americans are fully aware of the failure of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare, Medicade, Amtrak, the US Post office, all bankrupt and losing money each year and

they want nothing to do with government run healthcare as the track record for government run entities is poor indeed.

You appear quite willing to turn over your health concerns to a government board, normal American's are fully informed and are determined to keep health care decisions in their hands, not the Beltway.

 

[R. Richard]

are you accepting medicare benefits? social security? who runs these?



I'm glad you asked that question, Pure. Let me give you a full answer, that shows what the government can do and what private industry [insurance] can do.

Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform

The current debate over Social Security reform is reminiscent of the discussions that occurred in Galveston County, Texas, in 1980, when county workers were offered a retirement alternative to Social Security: At the time they reacted with keen interest and some knee-jerk fear of the unknown. But after 24 years, folks here can say unequivocally that when Galveston County pulled out of the Social Security system in 1981, we were on the road to providing our workers with a better deal than Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

The Problem with Social Security. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system under which taxes collected from today's workers are used to pay today's retirees. That was sustainable in the past; for example, in 1950 there were 16 workers providing benefits for each retiree. However, today the ratio has dropped to 3 workers for each retiree, and by the year 2030 the ratio will be 2 to 1.

America's demographic changes and the program's expansion have driven the initial Social Security tax rate from 2 percent (1 percent each from employer and employee) to 12.4 percent today, and threaten to drive it even higher. This unsustainable trend is why policy makers are looking for ways to reform the system.

One of the most prominent proposed reforms would allow younger workers to divert some of the payroll taxes they already pay to create personal retirement accounts. The burden on future taxpayers would decline as retirees draw retirement benefits from their personal accounts, reducing the demand for taxpayer-funded benefits. Current and near-retirees would be unaffected and would continue to receive currently scheduled benefits. But how should the new accounts be structured? Some point to Chile, Britain, Australia or one of almost 30 countries that have incorporated personal investments into their public pension programs. But there are examples much closer to home.

The initial Social Security Act permitted municipal governments to opt out of the system - a loophole that Congress closed in 1983. In 1981, employees of Galveston County, Texas, chose by a vote of 78 percent to 22 percent to leave Social Security for a private alternative. Brazoria and Matagorda counties soon followed, swelling the private plan to more than 5,000 participants today. In the private plan, contributions are similar to those for Social Security but returns are quite different.

The Galveston Plan. In 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it - and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages - or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.

Galveston officials held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Galveston County employees passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 - just in time.

The Galveston Plan was implemented just before the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.

To be sure, our plan wasn't perfect, and we have made some adjustments. For instance, a few of our retired county workers are critical of the plan today because they say they are making less money than they would have on Social Security. This is because our plan allowed workers to make "hardship" withdrawals from the retirement plan during their working years. Some workers withdrew funds for current financial problems and consequently robbed their own future benefits. We closed that option in January 2005.

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return - more conservative than Galveston workers have earned - all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683.

Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.

Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.

Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

Guidance for Today's Reformers. Congress could consider making participation in any privatization plan voluntary at first. We made our plan voluntary in the beginning and 70 percent joined. It later became mandatory, and now there is full participation. Also, if some workers remain uncertain about investing a portion of their contributions, the plan could include a guarantee that low-income earners receive the same funds they would get with total participation in Social Security.

Our experience has shown that even though low-income workers would do better, a guarantee would ease their worries. Moderate- and higher-income workers would do much better, as ours do, because they have invested more in the plan and are not prejudicially punished or "topped out" on retirement benefits, as they are in Social Security.

In today's debate about whether to partially privatize Social Security, the Galveston County plan is sometimes demagogued. But our experience should be judged factually and fairly, not emotionally, politically or on the basis of hearsay. We sought a secure, risk-free alternative to the Social Security system, and it has worked very well for nearly a quarter-century. Our retirees have prospered, and our working people have had the security of generous disability and accidental death benefits.

Most important, we didn't force our children and grandchildren to be unduly taxed and burdened for our retirement while these fine young people are struggling to raise and provide for their own families.

What has been good for Galveston County may, indeed, be good for this country.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

are you accepting medicare benefits? social security? who runs these?

see the bolded statement below.


ami said It is the Acorn people, the public employees unions and the DNC who are true believers, dogmatic followers of nationalized health care that are misinformed and managed, bussed and instructed.

Some pundits are saying that the 'public option' was never an option, merely rhetoric to keep the far left involved. What is being said now is that a, 'cooperative' insurance plan was the goal all along to get the camel's nose in the tent and then expand it into full fledged socialized medicine.

Americans are fully aware of the failure of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare, Medicade, Amtrak, the US Post office, all bankrupt and losing money each year and

they want nothing to do with government run healthcare as the track record for government run entities is poor indeed.

You appear quite willing to turn over your health concerns to a government board, normal American's are fully informed and are determined to keep health care decisions in their hands, not the Beltway.

I'm an old geezer and no I don't participate in Medicare, but when I do retire I will take everything I can from the government run folly as I have been paying my hard earned dollars into it for ever, but I will also have private insurance to cover those item that medicare doesn't or won't.

So cut the crap about how we don't want government, government, government, government, government and more government, government, government and more and more and more, etc., etc., etc.