patrick.net

Yeah, why don't we get rid of Medicare and Medicaid first, completely socialist, commie shit. No use to anyone, and wastes my tax money to keep someone alive so that I can pay their SS, sounds as commie as you get.

This has made me so angry. Why should unemployed homeowners be the only ones to get their housing paid for? I'm unemployed, but renting. Does that mean that Obama is going to start paying my rent now too? When the heck are we going to let SOMEONE suffer the consequences for bad decisions? whether it be Wall St. bankers or Main St. homeowners, apparently noone is too small to fail...

Ahh, another shitty Reuters article. I swear, they'd claim that the administration was "considering" nuking China if they could get a sound byte of some intern making a dumb joke. I'm sure that somebody in the administration mentioned this as an option at some point, but I doubt it would make much of a difference. If the home owners are under water and they lose their job, losing the home would be great for them financially, and it's a much better decision than wiping out their savings. If they still have substantial equity and they lose their job, they should probably sell the place and live off of the proceeds. I completely understand the emotional attachment to the place that you live, but it's really stupid to go completely broke for the roof over your head. Delaying repayment entirely isn't the worst idea in the world though. It actually has shown positive effects in the student loan industry. I'm skeptical that it would do much to help anyone right now, though. The real question though, is "how long"? If someone is unemployed for a year or two, there's a good chance that their home value will be further underwater by the time they find a new job (and there's a good chance that the new job will pay less than the old one). One last comment here though -- not everyone who loses their job is "irresponsible". Is the guy who was an auto worker for 30 years who gets laid off too soon to retire "irresponsible" for not saving 2 years of pay instead of the recommended 6 months? I'm not saying that the guy deserves special help by any means, but calling people like that "irresponsible" is just a woeful display of ignorance.

Some Guy says

You said it. Why does this society continue to insist that renters should be the shit that “homeowners” wipe off their shoes? So you overpaid for your house - why exactly should that make you one of the chosen people?

Government policies have favored ownership the world over for a very long time. There has been plenty of research that shows that stability in living environment is very good for society as a whole. Aside from ensuring lower crime rates and higher school performance, home ownership acts as a nice dumb investment vehicle for people who aren't capable of managing more complex instruments. That's not to say that I agree with the bailouts, but you really should understand the government's reasoning in their actions. Well, that and 80% of registered voters are home owners.

Aside from ensuring lower crime rates and higher school performance, home ownership acts as a nice dumb investment vehicle for people who aren’t capable of managing more complex instruments.

...or getting screwed in the backside by same. When was it that houses became thought of as investments, anyway? Unless FLW designed it, forget it.

From Huffington Post - the best of Sarah's cringeworthy moments:

On July 31, 2008 Larry Kudlow interviewed Sarah Palin about a probe into an alleged scandal and asked her if she was interested in becoming John McCain's running mate. She replied: "But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does everyday?" On September 29, 2008 CBS aired one of the many parts of an interview Katie Couric did with Sarah Palin. In this particular installment, Couric asked "what newspapers and magazines did [she] regularly read..." and Palin responded by saying: "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media." Couric pushed further asking "what ones specifically?" and Pain said, "Umm... all of them. Any of them that have been in front of me over all these years." It only got worse for Palin from there. A couple days later Couric showed another segment of the interview in which she asked which decision, other than Roe V. Wade, Palin disagreed with. Sarah responded: "Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--" On October 2, 2008 Palin faced off against Joe Biden in their first (and only) VP debate. She said several hilarious things, but her winking is what most of us still remember and what gave Rich Lowry of the National Review "little starburts," most likely in his pants. On October 11, 2008 Sarah "I'm a hockey mom" Palin appeared at a Flyers game to drop the ceremonial first puck and was greeted by resounding "boos" from the crowd. On October 20, 2008 Sarah was interviewed by an NBC affiliate in Colorado, which passed on a question from a local third grader who wanted to know about what the Vice President does. Palin answered: "[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." Which is blatantly untrue. On November 1, 2008 Palin unwittingly took a call from a Canadian comedian posing as the French president. The fake Sarkozy suggested the pair go hunting together saying, "I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun." She responded, saying, "Well, I think we could have a lot of fun together while we're getting work done. We can kill two birds with one stone that way." The comedian went on to say his wife is "so hot in bed" and tell Palin that Bruni has written a song for her called "Du rouge a levres sur une cochonne" aka "Lipstick on a Pig." On October 5, 2008 Sarah Palin called Afghanistan “our neighboring country” during a speech to U.S. soldiers who must have thought, "This is what we're fighting for?" On October 15, 2008 Palin gave a speech in the Granite state and said, "I like being here," she told the crowd in Laconia, "because it seems like here and in our last rally too -- other parts around this great Northwest -- here in New Hampshire you just get it." The crowd was understandably confused. On November 13, 2008 Palin gave a speech that Jonathan Martin called "perplexing" and "jarring," because it was basically an old stump speech she gave a million times before she lost the election. Jonathan Capehart told MSNBC's David Shuster, "I watched her entire speech, and I had to remind myself that the election was a week ago, and this was not a McCain/Palin rally. Everything you heard at a McCain/Palin rally since she was selected as the Vice Presidential nominee since September, and even down to the same rhetoric was in that speech." On July 3, 2009 Sarah Palin announced that she would resign from the office of the governor, giving some a sigh of relief and late-night comedians a heart-attack. The speech was a little crazy: There was something about a fish and sports and a lot about politics and not quitting but then quitting. It was more confusing than when she explained politics to that 3rd grader. When Palin resigned she said that fighting unjust ethics complaints was immobilizing her. "I'm not going to let Alaskans go through a year of stymied, paralyzed administration and not getting anything done," she said. Someone asked how she would run the country if these accusations could stop her from running the state and Palin responded that the "department of law" protects the president. There's no such thing in the White House.

---------------------------- I prefer a candidate that can formulate a pertinent, educated response. If I wanted someone who was unable to do so, I'd vote for BAP33.

Well, I don't like it that most of us are subsidizing the lifestyle of these few commies in our country who takes advantage of our hard work to get their unlimited healthcare supply. I say abolish Medicare completely, what do ya think?

>makes the Democrats the most smug smart asses in the political arena. The Democrats are smug because the prior government (i.e. 1980-1988, 2000-2008) was recently run by a bunch of "cognitively challenged" sociopathic, theo-conservatives masquerading as competent adults, voted in by same. Momentarily, we have grown-ups in charge. Grown-ups who can see that national health care is a successful, paid-for fact in Canada and Sweden and that their countries are not impoverished hellholes with people dying of disease on the streets. Grown-ups who can see that capitalism sometimes fails (i.e. the financial system, the health care system, the energy supply system) and that it's not some kind of magic fairy that cures all ills. You need a mix of government and capitalism. You need a balance. You need both. Oh, and may I say smugly, "Grow up."

Jessica is a Medicare recipient? According to the article, Jessica is only 18. I have no problem with providing Medicare benefits to young people below 20, I have a huge problem keeping broke old farts alive. I will be an old fart one day, but I manage my money carefully so I won't be an old broke fart, and I won't want to make myself a burden to the society. In return, I don't want the old farts of today to become my burden.

What is so wrong with being against keeping the old and unproductive people alive? If old people want to live on, plan their lives better. If they fuck up throughout their lives, that is their problem, I won't be their insurance policy when they get old and unproductive. I have absolutely no sympathy for old farts, none whatsoever, and I don't expect any sympathy when I am old, I will make sure I make enough money that when I get old, I can BUY sympathy. Medicare is the biggest cancer of this country, and it is morally wrong. Nowhere else in the world do you have unlimited national health care JUST FOR the dying population. It is a very absurd, very sick policy, it drains money from the young and productive to fund the old and unproductive who lived a reckless life and now expect solutions from someone else.

Some Guy says

OO says

Some Guy says

Problem is, I don’t think that’s politically viable. There’s no way this country would ever allow a fully government owned and operated healthcare system. We have to set our sights on something that could actually be achieved.

Medicare and Medicaid??

Medicare and Medicaid are not available to the majority of the population. I hardly think they could qualify the U.S. as having a completely government-run healthcare system. The vast majority of the system is still private.

Just so were all clear, today the government is responsible for about 1 out of every 2 dollars spent in healthcare today. Yes 50% of the "system" is already government run. There are so many problems with healthcare that no "easy" solution exists. I for one am completely against government run healthcare because I personally believe it would stifle investment in medical technology and destroy yet another sector of the economy that USA has led in for many years. But I do believe that the system needs to find a way to provide coverage for all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. At some point though, you have to be able to pay more for better care and better doctors and the latest in medical technology. We also need to find a way to determine what the "basic" care should be using metrics like cost / quality adjusted year of life and make the hard decisions about what care won't be provided at a certain point in someones life (a VERY HARD decision to come to, especially when it gets personal). Just my 2 cents

Some Guy, this new forum has made you angry :(

Just watched on Cavuto a Canadian reporter go undercover and film what health care is like in Canada. Wait time in ER: 2 to 10 hour wait. Must take a number. Reporter's was # 770 (seven hundred seventy). One man was waiting with a broken clavicle. He waited for 2 hours, was told to go home and come back the next day. Clinic wait times were somewhat better. People with money go to private doctors; otherwise, the wait to be assigned a doctor is about 2 years. 3 year wait to be assigned a Family Practice doctor. One woman came to a Canadian health care clinic with circulatory problems and was told to wait to be assigned a family doctor. by the time she got to see one, her two legs needed to be amputated because the wait was so long. I checked YouTube and today's interview is not up yet, however here is a video with a similar message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vNQFa_4S80&feature=PlayList&p=0342FB44490B631B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17

I'm a liberal. Everyone should be liberal. It means FREE. But I'm totally opposed to forcing the public to pay down private mortgage debts.

Someguy, The difference between your post stating the horrors in this country and the horrors in the Canadian system is that one is the norm and one is the exception. The Canadian and British systems are a joke. I work for a major medical center here in San Francisco and the British Healthcare system leaders came here to our medical center to try and find was to emulate it. Also a friend of mine here at my hospital has just gone to London to see his grandmother for her last few days on earth. She was another typical horror story of the British system. She had a heart attack and had to wait ONE MONTH before she had surgery. Half of her heart was dead by the time they performed the surgery and her heart now just doesn't have enough energy to keep her alive on what's left. Sorry, but I think I'd rather pay a private medical company to provide me healthcare than the DMV.

MeanGreen - you are correct. "the horrors in this country and the horrors in the Canadian system is that one is the norm and one is the exception..." King-Drew (now King-Harbor) is not a hospital from which to draw common examples. That hospital has been cited for various serious violations numerous times over the past 20 years and has faced being shut down altogether at least twice due to horrific "mistakes" made by personnel there. The Los Angeles Times has done at least 2 front-page articles detailing the mess at King-Drew. Lots of handwringing, but the problem lies in the hiring practices and the hospital management which has been african, hispanic and asian. As a 4th-generation Californian, I can tell you that King-Drew's hiring policies were to draw from the ethnic communities in Los Angeles and to avoid hiring white medical personnel. King-Drew was to be a shining example of how racial groups other than caucasian can provide superior medical care to their own communities. Mexico has a government-run health care system; one would think that since health care is free there, then why on earth do the illegals come here?! Someguy: if you have a dispute regarding the accuracy of the Canadian reporter's piece, then the best thing to do is to contact Neil Cavuto and have it out with him and not us. Thanks!

OK, sorry for keep hammering on this. Why is it that Canadians under their public Canadian system have to wait the allegedly whatever 2-10 hours for any treatment but our seniors who are living off MY dough don't need to wait squat to get their service? If our seniors are who leeching off us have to wait 10 hours or 20 hours to get any treatment at all, even if they are bleeding, then I have no problem. But it seems like our seniors are getting Viagra and Scooter Chairs off my paycheck, while I get NO FREEBIE from the government, that is something that troubles me deeply. So give me a public system under which EVERYONE has to wait, or give me a private system under which we let poor people die. I am fine with either, or, not the current hybrid we are in.

Oh, so do you mean that our seniors are only consuming medical resources that they have contributed throughout their lives? Looks like you do not have a job, because if you do, you will understand that FICA is purely transfer tax, if the seniors only consume they have contributed throughout their lifetime, they cannot even last through 70. They would have been dead by 68.

It is precisely because I have a job, that I do not want other people to leech off me, especially for 7% of my paycheck. I don't need to pay into that fund, I can save that alright just for myself, and ask for no help from the government when I am old, unlike some who are counting on the government for them live beyond 65. Most seniors in this country don't even have $50K asset saved up, and they definitely are expecting a paycheck from those of us who can still hold a job. And like it or not, you are paying for their $100K+ hospital bills, even if they have never ever paid that much into the system throughout their lifetime. I would have been ok if each everyone of us are metered on how much we have ever contributed into the system, and cap our lifetime medical expenses based on our contribution.

Yeah, he was told to go home and come back the next day because the line was so long. The next day, he would have to continue to wait, however, not for so long. Wonder what his family did. I suppose everyone should be trained in paramedical skills to live there, just because the medical care is rationed. I saw man who had just broken his clavicle (here in the US we refer to it as a collarbone break) - his shoulder on the broken side was about 4 inches lower than the broken side. Its supposed to be a very recoverable injury but only if the bone is reset within a short period of time after the injury.

A neighbor of mine broke her arm in the kitchen, got sent to the hospital right away by ambulance and stayed in rehab for over a month. The total bill was decidedly over $100K. She never worked her entire life, a housewife. The woman who collapsed on the floor and died being ignored was not a retiree, shame on her. If she was 65, she would have been sent right into the best hospital nearby and lived it up like a queen all on our tax dollars. In this country, there are two classes of medical citizens, the first class citizen - the senior, and the second class. The second class have to work to pay for their own insurance, and pay for swanky medical treatment for the first class.

Look, guys. We have real problems with healthcare in this country. Sure, we have people who are old who are receiving expensive treatments, even though they're toward the end of their lives. But who is it that determines the value of a life? If you are 80 years old, you might very well have another 20 years on you. Is your life less valuable than that of a 25 year old? How about if you are an 80 year old Albert Einstein and the 25 year old is a gang-banger from the 'hood? What if you are 60 and newly married vs a woman of child-bearing age who is single? Single young man vs married older man with family to support? Business owner/taxpayer vs. young person starting out? Whose life is more valuable? We get caught in the minutiae. No system will be perfect. But ours is far, far, far from perfect. Healthcare decisions are made by people who never see the patient and are based on finances alone. If a physician recommends treatment, and another agrees, an insurance company still easily denies payment for the procedure which might save a life or make the life more bearable. Currently Medicare rates set the payment system; insurance companies mirror them to a great extent. But private insurance looks for every reason to deny benefits, from unknown pre-existing conditions to a case manager denying coverage without being knowledgeable about the condition. Medicaid, with current cutbacks, is not covering many extra programs for healthy kids, meaning that when they're older they may be sick as hell and Medicare will have to cover it. Our desire to have national healthcare coverage is genuine. It is necessary. People here are bitching alot, but little Jessica and countless others will stop receiving treatment when their money is gone. It's possible that they could recover and become tax-paying, productive citizens. And if they never do, they're still someone's daughter or sister or wife. They need action.

OO: "A neighbor of mine broke her arm in the kitchen, got sent to the hospital right away by ambulance and stayed in rehab for over a month. The total bill was decidedly over $100K." Are you certain that a broken arm was her only injury? Reason why I'm asking is that normally in a broken arm situation there's no ambulance involved unless the person has no reasonable way of getting to the hospital or clinic and rehab isn't normally needed. I'm wondering if she is diabetic - or has some autoimmune disorder....there is more to this

No, she is not diabetic, no other diseases. She bragged about how much she cost the medical system to us, saying that even for a healthy senior like her, they treat her like a royal - with our payment of course. She broke her arm while lifting something, so she called 911, hence the ambulance. Who's to determine the value of life? Money is, no money, no life extension, we cannot afford it.

I'd vote for Tina Fey, tho...

OO sez: >>Nowhere else in the world do you have unlimited national health care JUST FOR the dying population. The reason is, of course, that in the US, the entrenched principle is that government gets all the unprofitable enterprises, whereas private industry gets to cherry-pick for profit, all the while getting to brag about how they are more efficient and all that. Privatize profits, socialize loss. Does it sound familiar?

Tenpoundbass says

Communism is the government owning your house as well… = America has that now (Check) TARP anyone Communism is owning the banks = check

No, communism would be that nobody owns the house and nobody owns the banks (or everyone owns the house and everyone owns the banks). What you're describing is socialism, though that isn't what America has now either. The only thing that the government owns is GM, some parks, some highways, a few buildings, the post office, and a bunch of debt.

Current government policies are ensuring that only cash investors can buy houses. This means MORE renter, not fewer.

Not with an FHA loan!

Anyone who wants to be President who doesn't even understand what the vice president does is not fit for either job, period. Unless your goal is the final destruction of America, you'd be a fool for supporting her.

Tenpoundbass says

elliemae says

Our desire to have national healthcare coverage is genuine. It is necessary. People here are bitching alot, but little Jessica and countless others will stop receiving treatment when their money is gone. It’s possible that they could recover and become tax-paying, productive citizens. And if they never do, they’re still someone’s daughter or sister or wife.

You’re so cool… Like a lil Jewish barnyard Madonna.

You mean an old chick who looks horrible without makeup, lives a Michael Jackson-like life buying up foreign babies, dressing up outrageously and being - well, wierd? Or the one who believes that the story of the $100,000 broken arm is the "billed" charges, not the actual charges? Because Medicare pays approx $1,000 per day maximum for hospitalization, plus 80% of MD charges and labs and xrays... and the rehab, if indeed the arm was the only thing wrong (except that the woman probably fell in her kitchen so she probably would benefit from a bit of physical therapy); less than $400 per day for the first 20 days and afterward the patient pays $133.50 out of pocket... So you're looking at a bill of around $10,000 - $15,000. Which, if the arm was damaged, isn't bad at all. She'll return home, have quality without loss of function and not need supporting social services to keep her in her home, at least for awhile. And, the ambulance bill was probably around $1,500 in the most expensive area, only Medicare will pay about $250. Since all providers accept assignment (meaning that they accept Medicare's approved amount as payment in full), the patient only had to pay approved co-pays & deductibles. Billed charges are the ones on the bills that people receive from theiving, for-profit (even if they say they're non-profit they charge the same) providers. That isn't the amount that's paid. I've seen $300,000 ICU bills paid dropped to 10% or less. So when someone brags that they cost the system a huge amount, they're probably full of shit. Who was it that said "the plural of anecdote is not data?"

Tenpoundbass says

I’d vote for you.

I think that there's a requirement that the VP wears shoes. And I'd have to live on a navy base - my middle-aged heart wouldn't last watching all those hot little recruits in tight naval uniforms... I need a moment... Do they allow goats/chickens/horses/dogs/cats on naval bases? All of these things can be resolved, I guess. After all, as President of the US Senate I could "get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better..." - so I'd assign each Senator barnyard cleanup and repair duty. It'd probably be the first time that they ever got their hands dirty, other when when they were wiggling those silver spoons that's so far up their asses.

elliemae says

Look, guys. We have real problems with healthcare in this country. Sure, we have people who are old who are receiving expensive treatments, even though they’re toward the end of their lives. But who is it that determines the value of a life? If you are 80 years old, you might very well have another 20 years on you. Is your life less valuable than that of a 25 year old? How about if you are an 80 year old Albert Einstein and the 25 year old is a gang-banger from the ‘hood? What if you are 60 and newly married vs a woman of child-bearing age who is single? Single young man vs married older man with family to support? Business owner/taxpayer vs. young person starting out? Whose life is more valuable? We get caught in the minutiae. No system will be perfect. But ours is far, far, far from perfect. Healthcare decisions are made by people who never see the patient and are based on finances alone. If a physician recommends treatment, and another agrees, an insurance company still easily denies payment for the procedure which might save a life or make the life more bearable. Currently Medicare rates set the payment system; insurance companies mirror them to a great extent. But private insurance looks for every reason to deny benefits, from unknown pre-existing conditions to a case manager denying coverage without being knowledgeable about the condition. Medicaid, with current cutbacks, is not covering many extra programs for healthy kids, meaning that when they’re older they may be sick as hell and Medicare will have to cover it. Our desire to have national healthcare coverage is genuine. It is necessary. People here are bitching alot, but little Jessica and countless others will stop receiving treatment when their money is gone. It’s possible that they could recover and become tax-paying, productive citizens. And if they never do, they’re still someone’s daughter or sister or wife. They need action.

I think this argument is really about the fact that every American needs to have health care coverage, which I believe that all parties - liberal, conservative, etc. - agree to. The issue is around who should run the system to provide the coverage (and who will pay for it). I don't believe that the government can run the insurance industry more effectively than private companies competing. Yes, you will have greed and corruption and some issues with payors not covering what they should .... but were comparing this to the government! Just because the government runs something doesn't end all corruption. In fact many issues occur in our current Medicare/Medicaid system because of such issues, and corruption of course is seen all across the government (ever been to Chicago). The other thing that scares me about the government controlling the insurance industry is that decisions around what drugs and devices are covered becomes highly political. Want your hospital in the suburbs of Ohio to get the latest MRI machines, well you need to go lobby your local representative. A company wants a new device covered, well maybe they will run a PR campaign to influence the government and force them to cover something.

I feel that the goverment should stay out of medicine. I think they started most of the current problems by allowing the over regulating of what doctors can do and charge. Because of over regulation it is almost imposable to see a regular doctor for a non-emergency that needs medical attention unless you are willing to wait a long time. This is creating a lot of unneeded expenses. Case in point My wife stubbed her finger on a rusty nail when we were moving. No doctor in the area had time to see her to give her a Tetanus shot. The doctors office recommended for us go to the emergency room if we wanted to get a shot. Because we were put in the position of having to go to the emergency room, what would have been a $200 so bill ended up being almost $2000. Most of those costs being administrative or junk fees from the hospital. The system is screwed up, but I think the problem is over regulation and the exuberant power of insurance companies to regulate prices. I do not think giving the government more power is the fix. I feel that the system was working much better when there was free market, cheaper to. Also, what next should we hand over dentist, eye care specialists and other specialties to government control? I personally do not want the government to have any involvement in determining what doctors I see, how much I pay and how I should be treated.

d3, >>I think the problem is over regulation A tetanus shot ended up costing you $2000, and you think the problem is OVER-regulation? I just don't get the logic behind this type of thinking.

The problem is that over regulation as scared of family practitioners. If you want to get a shot you are forced to go to an emerancy room which costs both them and you more money.

d3, still not getting it. Exactly what kind of regulation is it that "scares off" family practitioners, and how? Why are they seemingly less scared of becoming highly-paid specialists?

I also beleive over regulation would make regular doctor visits cheaper because doctors are currently forced to give a people with insurance huge discounts in there rates. It also costs doctors an arm and a leg for all of the personal and software required to deal with medical billing of insurance providoers. In order to make up the costs docters are forced to raise prices on every one else. If doctors had more power vs the goverment there would be compitition again. Doctors would only be able to charge based on there expenses and what people would be willing to pay them. Also being a good doctor is no longer rewarding because there is no monitary benifit any more. Keeping the goverment out and letting free market in could fix this. If the goverment wants to be involved; I think it should be limited only to subsidizing the costs for low income and for expensive emergancy proceedures.

Some Guy says

Does it not mean that the government controls the means of production?

No, it means that *EVERYBODY* owns the means of production. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production.

Some Guy says

d3 says

The problem is that over regulation as scared of family practitioners. If you want to get a shot you are forced to go to an emerancy room which costs both them and you more money.

Huh? What does government regulation have to do with a doctor being too busy to see you?

The relationship is fairly indirect, but it does exist. From my understanding, for Medicare and a lot of specific treatments ie vaccines, there is price setting that is in effect which prevent a doctor from refusing certain treatments and charging more than a set amount for that treatment. Doctors will often have to take loses to provide certain treatments. Also depending upon the area the doctor serves he may have even greater limits to what he is allowed to charge for certain treatments. This is what has been scaring doctors away.

Some Guy says

You are paying

It is true a doctor maybe charge what he wants, however the insurance and medicare are only obligated to pay a certain amount. For many treatment that amount is set below what makes it profitable for many practitioners to make any money off the treatments. Sometimes they are even forced to take a loss. Why would one spend 8 years in school to be a primary care doctor when you can make more money in most fields with a 4 year education. I just feel that over regulation from medicare and the insurance companies have taken away the profitability of family practice. It is a fact family doctors are leaving the field. I just think that socializing medicine is the current root cause of the problem and adding more regulation will only make things worse