The recession of the Carter years and early Reagan years ended because
of new computer technologies creating opportunities for start-up
businesses. We need something similar today. When I talk to people
about starting their own businesses, many of them do not do it because
of the cost of health care. I have an employee who desperately wants
to work for himself but he will not because his wife is in poor
health. Solve this problem and small businesses will greatly
increase.
The second part of the solution is something the govt has been doing
for over 20 years, the Small Business Innovative Research program that
provides early money for showing a technology to be feasible provided
the technology solves a govt problem. My own company got started with
this program and if it was done better, it could start many more
businesses. Phase I which lasts from 6-9 months provides up to
$100,000 to do proof of concept and Phase II provides up to $750,000
for two years to make prototypes. The govt gets royalty free use of
the technology. Every agency that has a research budget is required
to put 3% of that research budget into the SBIR program and it really
is limited to small business although small means less than 500
employees.
I suggest that the SBIR program be increased to 4% of R&D budgets and
that small business for the increased part be limited to less than 100
employees. Furthermore, I suggest that the people getting these
grants be made de-facto govt employees during the term of the grants
with the only benefits they get being access to health coverage that
is paid from the grant (the way it is currently done). This will mean
that pre-existing conditions will be covered.
Just like any other investor, the govt should get some ownership to
the technology developed, perhaps a stake in the start-up company that
could be sold after 5 years. Selling these rights could recoup much
of the money spent on the program.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
The recession of the Carter years and early Reagan years ended because
of new computer technologies creating opportunities for start-up
businesses. We need something similar today. When I talk to people
about starting their own businesses, many of them do not do it because
of the cost of health care. I have an employee who desperately wants
to work for himself but he will not because his wife is in poor
health. Solve this problem and small businesses will greatly
increase.

You think government health care will help? Look North, we have government
health care and people don't start real businesses here because of the
taxes, red tape and government interference. Then you get union issues too.
But also, lets skip the lineups for basic care, we often can send pregnent
women to the US because of bed shortages as babies don't and can't wait like
cysts, cancer, cateracts and the like.

Oh, we have lots of placeholder businesses, they are individuals with no
employees setting up corporations as to duck the tax load that you get. But
real employee based, we are far smaller in numbers per capita than the USA.

The promise of health care is coming at a cost of your economic freedom.
Take any country that has government sponsored health care and take your
income and fill out their tax forms to find out what it costs, don't take my
word for it.

Try this page, and do one for our larget province, Ontario.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/formspubs/menu-eng.html

For Ontario specific:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/formspubs/t1gnrl/on-eng.html

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
The recession of the Carter years and early Reagan years ended because
of new computer technologies creating opportunities for start-up
businesses. We need something similar today. When I talk to people
about starting their own businesses, many of them do not do it because
of the cost of health care. I have an employee who desperately wants
to work for himself but he will not because his wife is in poor
health. Solve this problem and small businesses will greatly
increase.

You think government health care will help? Look North, we have
government health care and people don't start real businesses here because
of the taxes, red tape and government interference. Then you get union
issues too. But also, lets skip the lineups for basic care, we often can
send pregnent women to the US because of bed shortages as babies don't and
can't wait like cysts, cancer, cateracts and the like.

Oh, we have lots of placeholder businesses, they are individuals with no
employees setting up corporations as to duck the tax load that you get.
But real employee based, we are far smaller in numbers per capita than the
USA.

The promise of health care is coming at a cost of your economic freedom.
Take any country that has government sponsored health care and take your
income and fill out their tax forms to find out what it costs, don't take
my word for it.

Try this page, and do one for our larget province, Ontario.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/formspubs/menu-eng.html

For Ontario specific:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/formspubs/t1gnrl/on-eng.html


Or if you want something much quicker, go to the site below. Then compare
to your current taxes where you are. But this site deals with averages and
may not be 100% accurate to your specific situation. But is accurate as an
average.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/tools/Default.htm

Hints, BC and Ontario are the worst but represent almost 1/2 of Canadians.
So this is typical Canadian. Also note a comaprison list is provided after
you enter so you can see the tax rates and differences between different
provinces. A nice tool actually.

Canuck57 wrote:

You think government health care will help? Look North, we have government
health care and people don't start real businesses here because of the
taxes, red tape and government interference. Then you get union issues too.


Those darn union issues. Imagine the gall of workers wanting an agent to
represent them and negotiate for decent wages, hours, working conditions
and benefits. Everyone knows workers are there for the exploitation.

On Mar 4, 2:06 pm, HK wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
You think government health care will help? Look North, we have government
health care and people don't start real businesses here because of the
taxes, red tape and government interference. Then you get union issues too.

Those darn union issues. Imagine the gall of workers wanting an agent to
represent them and negotiate for decent wages, hours, working conditions
and benefits. Everyone knows workers are there for the exploitation.

You missed the point, I am not advocating govt health care at all. I
am simply trying to make it possible for people with pre-existing
cond. to get private health care, the same private health care govt
employees use such as an HMO. By making these people temp govt
employees, pre-existing conditions are immediately covered by the
money paid in the grant just as is currently done.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Canuck57 wrote:

You think government health care will help? Look North, we have
government health care and people don't start real businesses here
because of the taxes, red tape and government interference. Then you get
union issues too.


Those darn union issues. Imagine the gall of workers wanting an agent to
represent them and negotiate for decent wages, hours, working conditions
and benefits. Everyone knows workers are there for the exploitation.

I per say have no problems with unions, but they should be as easy to get
rid of as to get. They are like a flu you can't get rid of. And when times
are good, they want the profits in wages, when times are bad the sharehodler
have to eat it. A little too one sided. Lockout rules on out of contract
unions should be liberalised.

The best environments are where the economy is doing real well and employers
are short of workers. That way abusive employers will not last long.
Trouble is with high taxation, high union tollerance, socialist mentality,
makes for a crappy career options when looking for a job.

And over time, while CAW/UAW enjoyed 30 years of excessive pay and benefits,
it ran down GM/Chrysler one little cut at a time. But I do think
management/board of GM/Chrysler were the real big causes as they are not
supposed to let this happen. Thus, management needs a massive firing,
starting at the top.

Canuck57 wrote:

I per say have no problems with unions, but they should be as easy to get
rid of as to get. They are like a flu you can't get rid of. And when times
are good, they want the profits in wages, when times are bad the sharehodler
have to eat it. A little too one sided. Lockout rules on out of contract
unions should be liberalised.

Those darn unions...but they have a lot to learn from wall street,
where, when profits are good, they keep them, and when there are losses,
the taxpayers make 'em good. So they can continue to pay multimillion
dollar bonuses.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 2:06 pm, HK wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
You think government health care will help? Look North, we have
government
health care and people don't start real businesses here because of the
taxes, red tape and government interference. Then you get union issues
too.

Those darn union issues. Imagine the gall of workers wanting an agent to
represent them and negotiate for decent wages, hours, working conditions
and benefits. Everyone knows workers are there for the exploitation.

You missed the point, I am not advocating govt health care at all. I
am simply trying to make it possible for people with pre-existing
cond. to get private health care, the same private health care govt
employees use such as an HMO. By making these people temp govt
employees, pre-existing conditions are immediately covered by the
money paid in the grant just as is currently done.

Our experiences in Canada with this global health care is actually good in
many ways but for three very critical parts.

There is only one service proider and if you down't like them or they don't
cover it, tough-s--t.

Second issue is funding. Government holds it over the people like a hammer
justifing tax increases to the moon. When they get the extra $10,000 in
taxes, maybe $2000 goes to health care and $8000 to pork.

Third, Canadians going to the US have zero coverage, it only works in
Canada. Want to go to Hawaii, or Chicago, better get added coverage. In
fact, most Canadians get suplimental coverage at their own taxable expense
as government coverage is too weak and basic.

If the US did do it, fixing the above issues will go a long way in
preventing tax-slavery and servatude to the government. As that is what it
becomes. If you are taxed 50%, most will not have the finacial option of a
different provider.

For example, say everyone had a flat rate, no deduction health care surtax
of 7%. But got government health care. Next, the government could
misappropriate funds from it and say they want more taxes to cover it. The
cycle will eventually result in 50% or more of your income going to taxes.
Think I am joking? Check out tax rates of any country with global heath
care.

To prevent this, it needs to be deducted as a flat percentage, and the
percentage is set that 100% self funding, no borrowing, no skiming, no
misappropriations allowed. If consumption goes up, so must the rates, no
debt allowed and surpluses returned as lower rates. The funding rules need
to be clean and absolute, plus visible on your cheque. Totally separate
from government revenue and spending.

Then you need limited liability and lifetime limit rules, not everyone can
cost $2M in a lifetime, unless they paid in $2+M. So certain expensive
surgeries will never happen. If you need your 3rd operation at $250K you
may not qualify. Another item they do is rationing. Active tax paying
worker gets treaments in weeks, where as a retired person might have to wait
14 months. Yes, these rules will creap in as the government manages the
herd.

Don't be so quick to jump the government health care wagon, it isn't all
benefits without a price to fiscal liberty and in many cases, service
levels. You might be better off to sell out and move to south America where
services are cheap any pay for them yourself. For example, I can get a
crown cheaper in Costa Rica than I can here for my deductable.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Canuck57 wrote:

I per say have no problems with unions, but they should be as easy to get
rid of as to get. They are like a flu you can't get rid of. And when
times are good, they want the profits in wages, when times are bad the
sharehodler have to eat it. A little too one sided. Lockout rules on
out of contract unions should be liberalised.

Those darn unions...but they have a lot to learn from wall street, where,
when profits are good, they keep them, and when there are losses, the
taxpayers make 'em good. So they can continue to pay multimillion dollar
bonuses.

Unions could start their own businesses. No kidding either.

Take GM/Chrysler and CAW/UAW. They could all take out a small $50,000 loan,
give it to these failing dogs to buy out all the debt and then run the
companies. No taxpayer rape and corruption spending needed. With the
claimed membership of CAW/UAW they wouldn't even need much more than $50K
per every CAW/UAW to pull it off.

There is a hint on why they will not, corruption spending is easier.