In Ontario, you can go on the College of Physicians website and find out which doctors are accepting patients. Then you can look further there to see when and where they graduated from, whether or not they have hospital admitting privileges, whether or not they have restrictions etc. It is a great source of information if you are willing to do some homework. Sites such as RateMD's are also a site of information that will give you a bit of an indication of how the doctor treats the patients. As a nurse, I have worked with many doctors and I have to say that it is pretty accurate for personalities. Keep in mind that there will always be some unhappy reports. Doctors are human after all and no one is perfect. It will give you an idea and a general feeling about a doctor in any case. Doctors in Ontario are in such short supply, we really don't have the luxury of choosing as much as in some countries. We are lucky if we can find a doctor that will take us.

Maybe a fund of about $1.333 million at about 3% would be a more feasible scenario. Not providing for sale of some assets, rather probable in a 1.5 - 2 million or larger asset portfolio situation (some paying almost no dividends or none), which would result in capital gains/(losses) to relate to current income. In earlier years, if one received $10,000. of dividends from Canadian Corporations, one added (Grossed-up) 25% to that figure to find the taxable amount of dividend income, to report $12,500. on the tax return. Then 13.333% of that amount, or Dividend Tax Credit of $1,666.63 was deducted from the tax that one owed. Non-refundable tax credits were available to most taxpayers, and those along with the dividend tax credits, allowed "taxpayers" with no other income to have about $27,000. solely dividend income to have nil tax to pay. Now this situation is called "Ineligible dividends" and the ratios are as indicated above. A new category of "Eligible dividends", which seems to include dividends paid by most stock-exchange-listed Canadian corporations, are grossed up by 45%, i.e. $10,000. cash is reported as $14,500. on the tax return - and have a Dividend Tax Credit of 18.9655% of the taxable amount, or $2,750. deducted from the tax owing. This, added to the Non-refundable tax credits, allows a "taxpayer" to have nearly $40,000. before becoming tax-liable. Which may be pushed higher in various other circumstances that I think that I outlined above. Most long-term Canadian residents, including non-employed people (e.g. housewives), qualify for Old Age Security at age 65 of about $5,800. annually. As this is a non-contributory Federal benefit, if the taxpayer's annual income is over about $55,000., part of that Old Age Security is clawed back by the gov't. The clawback amount increases, till the total amount of one's O.A.S. is clawed back when one's income is in the mid- to high $80,000.00s. Cash dividend of $40,000. plus 45% becomes $58,000. on tax return, plus $5,800. O.A.S., close to $64,000. taxable, will result in substantial clawback of one's O.A.S. benefit. Plus reduction in senior's Age credit, which reduces with increased "income" - whether "real" or "imagined" income! "Gross", huh? Canada Pension Plan (mandatory contributions by both employer and employee, therefore a contractual benefit) allows members who are "substantially retired" (rather loosely defined) to stop contributing and begin to claim benefits at any time between age 60 and 70, with 6% annual reduction if claimed under 65 and 6% annual addition if over 65. Taxable. Private pension plan benefits are available to some people. Benefits of up to $1,000. from private pension plan or RRIF payments qualify one for a non-refundable tax credit, dollar for dollar, up to $1,000. If one is age 69, partial owner (the government being the other partial owner) of a tax-deferred retirement account (RRSP), it must be closed out by the end of that year - or the rules provide that it will be closed out as of Dec. 31 of that year and the total amount added to income in that year. Scarcely anyone chooses this route!! Most personal money managers prefer to use the RRSP money: 1) to buy an annuity (not so hot an idea in these low-interest times), or 2) to roll over into a Registered Retirement Income Fund. With a RRIF, no more deposits allowed, and required to remove at least a given percentage annually, beginning at about 7.5% and rising to 20% annual withdrawal at age 90 and later. Residue in a RRIF on owner's death: if no spouse, infant or disabled dependent kid is added to deceased's income in year of death, or can be fully transferred to one in spouse's name with no tax consequences - yet. Residue is added to current income in year of surviving spouse's death. Where these or other income situations are obtained, the tax reduction is still substantial - but one doesn't avoid tax entirely: one is then a taxpayer (no quotation marks)! There are some other games that an astute portfolio manager can employ, if she/he is willing to a take some moderate short-term risks. There are several fairly smart women in the monthly investment shareclub that I've attended for about 7 years. Good wishes for wise and constructive use of retirement assets. ole joyful

Hi again, all you Canadians, Suppose, when the bank stock was at about $105.00, I'd decided to borrow $40.00 using those certificates as collateral (a lot more that the $4.00 original value!), and having certificates issued for the new shares and giving them to the bank to add to the collateral. When the original stock dropped to $68, a drop of about 1/3, (thanks almost entirely to that dratted U.S. sub-prime mortgage debacle - smells a lot like a hot shot lender-generated scam, to me) ... that would have been a real "loss" had I lost my nerve and sold it. If I'd used that $40. to have bought more stock of the same bank (not a good idea - best to own a variety of issues), that $40. stock value bought with the loan, having also declined by 1/3, to $26, would, added to the $68 of the original, produce $92.00 total current value ... more than double the $40.00 that I'd borrowed. So I'd have avoided a margin call on the loan, i.e. bring in some money to reduce the lender's loan to below 50% of total asset value, or more shares to add to the worth of the collateral ... by late today, tomorrow at the latest! And it would have been a lot wiser had I had stocks in about three not only actual companies, but types of industry, used as the collateral: less risky ... or, rather, spreading the risk over a wider area. Also, I still owed the bank $40. .. but the asset that it had bought was now worth only $26. By the way: note this aspect of calculating. The stock price dropped from 105 by a third to 68 ... but it's gotta gain by a half to break even: 68 + 34 = 102. It's a quality stock - it'll recover. I've got time to let it happen ... well, if, at 79, I don't, the executor of my will does. Neither of my major beneficiaries are under any more pressure to liquidate under pressure than am I. The pressure would be to pay income tax, about a year or slightly more later ... and there are other assets at close to real value to take care of that. Or, if everything were undervalued, she could use some of them to borrow to pay the tax, repaying the loan after recovery ... but the trouble with that would be that the loan interest wouldn't be deductible. Further to the rule of 72. At the price of $68., the stock price has doubled from the original $4.00 or so about 4 times: 8, 16, 32, 64. When one divides the 41 year period by the number of doubles, or 4, one gets 10.25, i.e., it took 10.25 years on average to double. Divide 72 by 10.25, one gets 7.02: the growth rate of the basic asset was about 7%. On the other hand, if you know the rate of interest that you expect a certain investment to achieve and divide that number into 72, say, 6%, you'll get a result of 12 ... it'll take your investment about 12 years to double (with no allowance for erosion of the income by tax, or of the value of the asset by inflation). In addition to the approximately 7% growth rate that my bank shares achieved, over the years they paid me about 3% in dividends, for a total growth rate of 10% or so: not too shabby ... especially when it's tax-advantaged, deferred and also tax-advantaged. And the annual rate of dividend grew since my last report to $3.48, which I think that they will make a strong effort to maintain, despite the drop in value of the stock. If they drop it back somewhat, it'll likely hit the stock price for a while, but I won't cry too hard. Earlier, at $105., or 4.5 doubles (8, 16, 32, 64, 128), dividing the 40 years by 4.5 gives 8.888, which is the rate of growth that the stock developed. Add about 3% or a little more of dividends that the shares paid over the years, and you get a total growth rate of close to 12%. I can handle that ... especially when I remember that I pay a low rate of tax on all of those dividends. I use the full amount earned by the loan-purchased stocks, plus part of that earned by my original cash amount invested to pay the interest on the loan, which interest is deductible (as it would not be were I to borrow to purchase an RRSP) and I think that you may get an idea of the reason that I prefer non-RRSP investing in a number of situations. Especially since, were I to cash out at either $105. or $68., after I deducted the $4.00 of original investment, I'd get half of the difference with no tax liability. But every dollar that I withdraw from an RRSP (or successor RRIF after age 69) ... gets added directly to income, and taxed at regular rate. If you can't avoid tax, defer it. But if you can pay some tax now and not only arrange for ongoing income to be taxed at a low rate ... but defer a substantial portion ... and then arrange for a major portion of it to be tax-free ... so much the better. So ... I think that sometimes it makes sense to pay some now, in order to arrange major tax benefits ... not only ongoing ... but later, as well. Not only that, when you have a major portion of your assets in an RRSP ... ... supposing that you need some money during those years of living and want to ask your lender for a loan. Can you use your RRSP assets as collateral for a loan? Officially, no ... unless you have a very accomodating lender, who'll make one without collateral (since they already carry your RRSP). Some will - some won't. Even so, the rate of interest might be higher. Good wishes for increasingly effective management of both your income and your assets. ole joyful P.S. Have you read my thread somewhere around here that outlines how to borrow to invest at almost no net cost (without making any allowance for possible increase in value of the invested asset)? Plus another asking which ordinary person/investor gains from the erosion in value of one's investment by inflation? o j

I'm not frieda, but IMHO I would have ended it when they finished the exhibit and went home. No scandal, no DaVinci code/Mission Impossilbe ending. The only thing I might have included - and was surprised that she didn't - was the visit Lola's real life person made with David, the son of the family who took her in. That takes place in the NYer excerpt and was very surprised she left it out. I can well imagine an editor insisting on some thrilling ending, which is too bad because in a book like this its the last thing you need. >This sort of novel will lead me on to other readings, hopefully, about the history of Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire, and the "Convivencia" time period of Spain's history Ones I've read: The Fracture Zone by Simon Winchester (non fiction), Birds without Wings (fiction). I also have read lots of history of the areas because I read travel narratives. I would recommend the classic Black Lamb Gray Falcon by Rebecca West - however its dated, and you'll get lots of gripes from all sides of the story of her different take on situations. But its worth reading just for the travel sections. I don't know any from the Convivencia period, tho I've read bits and pieces about it in other books. I'd love to know some of those as well - pass them on when you find them.