The U.S. Foreign Policy Circus

By Kelli Krauss

The current foreign policy stance held by the Obama administration, being heralded on the left as the way back into the good graces of other countries (including ones that want to destroy us), has been like watching a circus. President Obama is the ringleader with his blame America speeches and our State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton is like the car full of clowns. With every foreign affairs mishap, it's like another clown exiting the car. The question is how many clowns are in there?

First, Hillary Clinton went to Russia and met with Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. She gave him a plastic "red button" with Russian print on it that was supposed to say "reset" to represent the "reset" of relations between our two countries. Unfortunately, the Russian was wrong and the button actually said "overcharge." Apparently, they gave him the button that was meant for the American people.

Then Secretary Clinton went to Mexico where she continued to blame the U.S., citing the statistic that "90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States." In fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. An ATF spokeswoman stated the statistic as being, "over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

While in Mexico, Secretary Clinton stopped at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe to leave a bouquet of white flowers, “on behalf of the American people." She then asked, "Who painted it?" to which the Monsignor responded “God!” She apparently did not do her homework. The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the cloak of St. Juan Diego in 1531. Upon leaving the basilica, Mrs. Clinton told some of the Mexicans gathered outside to greet her, “You have a marvelous virgin!” Don't forget, this is "on behalf of the American people."

Secretary Clinton then went to China to beg and plead with them to keep buying U.S. debt. This was extremely important because the President and Congress are finding all kinds of ways to spend money that our country doesn't have and someone has to pay for it. Why not the Chinese and then eventually the next generation of Americans?

The U.S. then sent four detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the lovely island of Bermuda. Bermuda has control over it's own affairs which include immigration, but not foreign policy, defense or security, because they are still a British territory. Decisions on these matters would be made in London. Except if you are President Obama, the ringleader, then you let your operatives and State Department blindside one of our most reliable and important allies.

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to launch missile tests and threaten the U.S. with attacks if anything is done to prevent them or their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our response, they are a "grave threat" and we are "looking into it." Now, because the Bush Administration took North Korea off the terror list, we are trying to decide if we should put them back on. It is like the green, red and yellow cards my kindergartner gets at school. If they are having a good day, they keep the green card next to their name. When they start misbehaving, they get the yellow card for a warning, and when the teacher has had it, the red card goes up along with a note home. Right now, North Korea has a yellow card and we are trying to decide if we want to switch them to red and send a note to the mother of all foreign affairs, the dysfunctional United Nations.

We also had members of the Congressional Black Caucus visit Cuba. "Former President Fidel Castro is very engaging, very energetic," said CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee, a California Democrat. "Our conclusion is, given the new direction in our foreign policy, that it's time to look at a new direction in our policy toward Cuba." Lee and others gave much praise to Castro, saying that he was warm and receptive to them. Lee described her time with Castro as, “quite a moment to behold." Representative Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat said, “It was almost like listening to an old friend", and "In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor." I guess that would be true if your old friend is a communist tyrant who is a human rights abuser, suppresses free speech, fair elections and imprisons political dissenters.

Now we have our State Department telling its embassies and consulates around the world that “they may invite representatives from the government of Iran” to their Independence Day celebrations which are gatherings that usually have hot dogs, red-white-and-blue decorations, fireworks and is a general celebration of America, it's roots and values. Nothing like a friendly barbecue to show that the communication lines are open with a government that wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and whose leader despises America.

This was announced right before Secretary Clinton went to El Salvador where she is trying to improve relations in Latin America because they are concerned about the influence that Iran has been gaining there. Of course while there, as is the pattern with the Democrats (they did it for eight years, so I guess habits are hard to break) Clinton blamed the Bush administration and their policy in Latin America for the Iranian influence.

Even with the ongoing violence taking place in Iran today, with protesters marching in the streets, risking their lives in opposition to the current government and their election controversy, State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly said, "There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats. We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran. And -- and we tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now."

So to recap our foreign policy: we gave a plastic "red button" to Russia that didn't translate correctly; we went to Mexico and falsely accused the U.S. of supplying bad guys with guns; told the people in Mexico City that they have a "marvelous Virgin"; begged China to buy up more of our debt because we can't stop spending like drunken sailors; we sent Gitmo detainees off to live in a paradise governed by our ally without notifying them; we have scolded North Korea; engaged Fidel Castro, the communist dictator, and praised him; and now we are going to invite representatives from Iran to come and celebrate America's birthday with hot dogs, which depending on what kind you buy, they can't even eat because Muslims don't eat pork. With three and a half years left to this administration and it's foreign policy, I think the clown car is going to be really big.

The Medicare Trust Fund Will Run Out of Money in 8 Years. So, Lets put More People into the Program?

By Jill Serbousek

The news coverage on Healthcare reform and Medicare can be very confusing these days. The current administration continues to tout Medicare as a model for reform. Then other reports discuss the fact that Medicare cannot be sustained without the help of the private insurance industry, who supplements a percentage of the Medicare bill. In the same Chicago Tribune article that reported the grim news about Medicare’s impending insolvency, I also found this quote: "Medicare is central to the effort to promote high-quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a member of the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees.

Here are a few of my questions:

1. Does Medicare really provide high-quality care? Compared to other countries, the answer is most likely YES. Compared to private insurance? Doubtful. Medicare pays a pre-negotiated “flat fee” based on a Diagnostically Related Group or DRG. So, if you were having surgery, the hospital and surgeon will get a fixed amount to care for you. This means that they will work hard to make sure that the cost of your care fits into that fixed/flat payment. Would your younger, non-Medicare, friends receive the same care? Maybe, maybe not. Since there is no flat fee to work with, the doctor may be more willing to utilize newer technology, in many cases, more current standard of care. Even if you pay more for your Medicare coverage, as do patients who are in a higher earning category are required to do, your care will be dictated by the same pre-negotiated flat fee for your condition/procedure. In fact, those patients will pay 2 to 3 times the amount in the Part B premiums than their lower earning counterparts, for the same care. For basic healthcare needs, Medicare is probably adequate in quality. Not sure that I would characterize it as “high” quality, knowing that the flat fee forces a rationing of technologies utilized.

2. Does Medicare provide “affordable” care? It depends on who you listen to, and who you are talking about. The Sebelius quote implies that Medicare provides affordable care, so much so that it should be offered to “all Americans.” She is most likely referring to the affordability to patients. However, there are reports that estimate up to 89% of Medicare recipients have a supplement because it’s commonly known that Medicare will only pay for about half of a retiree’s healthcare costs, leaving large gaps. So, who is Medicare affordable and cost-effective for? The government? It appears that way since they are using the program to pay for only half of the participants needs.

3. If 89% of Medicare participants need a Medicare Supplement to pay for up to half of their healthcare costs, and Medicare is going broke, how does it make the program a great “model” for reform? This is the big question. I’m still doing research. Still trying to figure out why the politicians think that expanding Medicare or coming up with a Federal Health plan is a good idea. Once thing I am sure about, my confidence in the success of a federal plan is low…..

Resources worth reading:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/medicare-2009-p.html

http://www.online-health-insurance.com/health-insurance-resources/HFHC/content/medicare-supplements.htm



About Jill Serbousek:
Jill has been a marketing executive in the Medical Device industry for the past 20 years. First at Johnson & Johnson, then at Medtronic’s Spinal and Biologics business. She is a recognized expert, writer and frequent speaker on both web marketing and social networking in healthcare. Jill lives in Memphis, TN .

Link: http://www.healthandsharing.com/

Six Reasons Government-Run Health Care Is Bad for America, by Guest Blogger Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)

Washington politicians are rushing to dramatically change America’s entire health care system in the few weeks remaining between now and Congress’s traditional August recess. They intend to create a vast, new government-run plan for hundreds of millions of Americans. This government takeover of private medicine will have devastating consequences. Here are some of the worst:

1. Your benefits will be taxed. We’ve heard the promise time and again, “Your taxes won’t go up one cent,”…unless you have health insurance. Now, Congressional Democrats are proposing to tax the employer-provided benefits most Americans rely on for their medical care. Health insurance already costs too much. Taxing the health care benefits of hardworking Americans will increase its cost even more and drive additional Americans onto a government health care program.

2. If you like what you have, you will lose it. A new government-run plan will destroy your private health care coverage. While proponents of such a plan claim they will allow people to keep what they have, a government-run program will destroy private care, making it uncompetitive and more and more expensive. Millions of Americans who currently have private insurance will be forced onto a government plan.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Democrat leadership, in a moment of unguarded candor, recently acknowledged their goal: “[N]ext to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying: it wouldn’t let private insurance compete, that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer … he was right!” [emphasis added].

3. Your care and drugs will be rationed. In every country with government-run health care, government health boards decide who is allowed to have what drugs, procedures, and treatments. For instance, Medicare patients were recently informed they would be denied virtual colonoscopies.

Resources will be stretched thinner than ever before, and patients will be denied care to keep costs down. In anticipation of this, the stimulus package included a $1.1 billion research provision so that, “those items, procedures, and interventions… that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed” [emphasis added].

4. You will be placed on wait lists. Government care not only means rationing, it means bureaucracy and delays. In Massachusetts, the model state for universal coverage, one clinic has a wait list of at least 1,600 people—about four months—for an initial appointment. As one Canadian judge wrote, “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” What good is government coverage if all it gets you is a spot on a waiting list?

5. The quality of your care will plummet. Government insurance comes with strings attached for patients and doctors—and the incentives are all wrong. Already, Medicare rewards doctors for the volume of care provided, not for outcomes. If you get well, the doctor sees you less and his income decreases. This government model gives incentive to cram more patients and appointments into every day because quantity, not quality, are what counts. Just imagine: your doctor’s office or hospital will become more and more like the DMV.

6. You will have less choice and freedom. Government has expanded to an unprecedented size. It has taken over banks and car companies and sunk our nation into unthinkable debt. Every day, we see Washington creeping into our bank accounts, our minivans, and now even our doctors’ offices. Obamacare will mean losing one of our most intimate freedoms—the freedom to choose our medical care.

It is personal

By Lenny Moynihan



The Republican party could take a lesson from the Democrats. This week we all found out that Governor Mark Sanford was having an affair. Today I read he is considering resigning. The Democrats have been caught in as many compromising positions as any Republican and many are still working in politics. The most famous names that comes to mind are Kennedy and of course Clinton. I remember Clinton's finger wagging in our faces through the TV as he told us, he did not have sex with that girl, or did he call her woman? In any case, he remained President and Kennedy remains a Senator.

It is the Democrats and their audience that have insisted for decades that the personal and professional life are not tied. Of course, Republicans know this is not true. We know how a man conducts himself behind closed doors is a good indicator of how he will do so in office. Having said that, marriage is hard and infidelity is often a caustic reaction. We are human and it is inevitable that we will sin. I have a much easier time understanding and forgiving someone a transgression such as this. I find Obama's continued pathological lying much harder to ingest or forgive.

The Dem's always want it both ways. The problem with our party is we have not learned this lesson. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. By this, I do not mean for us to give up our integrity. I do, however, hope that our party will realize scandal is part of the political game. Every time you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar does not mean you need to step down! If the left can stay in office, then surely a great Governor like Mark Sanford can too. We are all fallible and like Jesus said, who will throw the first stone? Oh yea, the Democrats and their current leader Obama. The President's lauding of a healthy life style while he sucks the smokes behind closed doors is laughable. Hey, he eats veggies though so it makes it all OK. I digress but with Obama in office how can I help it? I find him and his wife overly smug with nothing backing it up. I am no fan of the elite and have learned you must always look at what they do not what they say. It is said a man is only as good as his word so Obama is not worth much.

If we are to become a strong party again, we must accept the rise and fall of poor choices. Governor Mark Sanford, I for one do not want you to step down. I think you have potential to be a great leader and we need great leaders. You made a mistake, you admitted it and your wife is willing to reconcile. Unlike the Democrats we can actually learn from our mistakes. Just this week Barney Frank is at it again wanting to hand out loans to those who can't afford them. Wow, do they ever learn? Sorry, I digress again but this stuff is just so rich you can't make it up. Our party must not sweep such ills under the carpet but grab the microphone and say hey I made a mistake. Then prove your understanding of that mistake by making it right. Insanity is doing the same thing over again hoping for a different outcome. Hasn't the Democratic party reached their limit on that? It is truth and honor that makes one great. This is a skill the left seems to lack.

Whatever Is In The Heart Will Come Up To The Tongue

Image via Wikipedia

By Theosebes

“Whatever is in the heart will come up to the tongue.” Persian Proverb

Once again free thought and speech have been punished by the radicals who refuse to “tolerate" any who oppose their views. As Carrie Prejean was de-throned as California’s Queen, the queens in Hollywood and the media won a battle, but the war for free thought and speech wages on and is far from over.

Carrie Prejean, who was dethroned as Miss California, may take legal action against pageant officials. Prejean’s lawyer Charles Limandri told The Factor that, contrary to pageant allegations, his client fulfilled all her obligations. “There was never a scheduled appearance that she missed,” Limandri asserted. “She was set up by Keith Lewis of the Miss California pageant, who could not tolerate it when she said marriage should be between a man and a woman. He is a militant gay activist, he is an openly gay man, and he is an ideologue.” The Factor expressed confusion at the entire affair: “You’re saying this all goes back to Miss Prejean’s comment about marriage, and that Mr. Lewis is so angry about her answer that he’s putting his own job in jeopardy.” http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=latestTVShow#4

Let us step back and recall exactly the “who” and the “why” behind the speech police. I don’t recall a badge being issued to this segment of society giving them the right to silence the majority in favor of the millennial old tradition, marriage between a man and a woman. But Carrie has become the pin up girl who the intolerant homosexual community has demoralized and subsequently removed her rightfully earned crown.

Reflect with me about what occurred on that fateful night of Carrie’s demise. (Taken from an earlier post.)

Hate speech, at its finest, was flamboyantly on parade, bubbling up from the depths of a soulless man. Darkness was brought to life as visceral contempt spewed from the recesses of Perez Hilton's small, malicious heart, toward a young woman, Carrie Prejean, who had done him no wrong.

He has done those who stand on the side of Goodness a service as he so eloquently demonstrated the deep seeded hate that many in his celebrity circle also embody. All one needs to know about his social community and the sewer in which he dwells is to visit his blog site: perezhilton.com. Warning: Content not suitable for most.

Have we bred a society of animals, whose passions rule their hearts and whose hearts vomit out the wickedness in which it was educated? In the name of tolerance, has America turned a blind eye to what is considered decent social behavior? Where have the true gentlemen gone that once wielded the pen and shared the podium?

G. K. Chesterton stated that, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” Are the convictions of those who preach tolerance even true to the very definition from which it was derived?

According to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), TOL’ERANCE, n. [L. tolerantia, from tolero, to bear.] is: The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring. The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.

Today’s flippant usage has little to do with its origin; yet is indoctrinated into the minds of American children to be of greater importance than even love. No longer is the Golden Rule taught, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; but rather “Lets all just get along,” regardless of whether one’s peers are demonstrating honorable character traits that build a virtuous society. We no longer press the mandate of chivalry and morals, but rather, America’s youthful society has learned that saying nothing for the “Good,” is being tolerant and merits an “A” in citizenship class. These children are now the adults that run the local news stations, judge Miss America Pageants and work for our Liberal Government.

Edmund Burke is credited with, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing” and one must ask: where are the men and women standing against evil? They are muzzled due to the fear of hate speech prosecution. They are fearful to offend and be called a bigot. Yet in the name of conviction, Carrie Prejean spoke words which she held to be truth and spoke them poignantly and peaceably while the Perez Hiltons of the Media and Hollywood scream hate speech and profanity. Carrie Prejean demonstrated the capacity of enduring the presence or actions of objectionable persons and their expression of offensive opinions.

One woman expressed her frustration in a letter to the editor of the North County Times. http://Letter to Editor by Nancy Popejoy…:

“I am so tired of being “tolerable” of other people’s opinions, only to have their “tolerance” of me turned into name-calling and throwing stones. I am a bigot if I don’t “agree” with you, a racist if I don’t “agree” with President Barack Obama and a homophobe if I believe a marriage should only be between a man and woman. If my opinion differs from yours, so be it. We are Americans and we all have that right. It is about time the “progressives” show me the same respect and be “tolerable.” The ones who are calling for “tolerance” of their beliefs are at it again with their “my way or the highway” thinking. The uproar over Carrie Prejean in the Miss USA pageant and her answer to a question about gay marriage, her personal beliefs and comment in support of keeping the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman has caused all in support of gay marriage to jump up shouting, “Hang her! She doesn’t agree with us.” Talk about intolerance and hypocrisy. Bigot, narrow-minded, intolerant … who does that sound like?” Nancy Popejoy, Murrieta, California

“We ought always to deal justly, not only with those who are just to us, but likewise to those who endeavor to injure us; and this, for fear lest by rendering them evil for evil, we should fall into the same vice.” (Hierocles).

Justice was dealt on the side of Right behavior this past week as the public spoke out against those who consistently trample moral character in the name of entertainment and protected by tolerance. Evil behavior can only masquerade for so long as “good society” before a shining light brings to evidence who is under the mask. Hollywood can keep going back to costuming for a new undercover look, but America saw through the glitz and one of their own stuck his foot in his filthy mouth and showed us what type of evil lurks under the disguise of tolerance.

Thomas Jefferson vs. ABC News

By: Kelli Krauss

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave right now in agony to see the country that he believed in and stood so strongly for, be mocked by ABC News running an infomercial for the President and his health care plan out of the White House. This is surely not what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights and ensured the freedom of the press.

ABC is set to air all their news shows from the White House for one day and they will be dedicated to promoting Obama's health care plan. In order to make sure that you are convinced and sold on it, a prime time special called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" will also be aired that evening. In a town-hall-style setting, President Obama will answer questions presented by the audience members who will be selected by ABC News. ABC has refused a request by the RNC to have a representative of the party's plan on during the Obamathon and has also refused to let paid ads air during the program showing any opposing viewpoint.

Many are accusing ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson, and rightly so, of selling Obama's socialized health care plan "without any opportunity for opposing views." This is on the heels of a new study that shows ABC News coverage of President Obama's health care plan is favorable by a ratio of 3 to 1.

At what point did the press turn from the true whistle-blowers and finders of truth, of reporters on fact and not propaganda to the mindless, spineless drones they are now. There is a reason that the big three networks ABC, NBC and CBS viewership continues to fall as a news source. In the cable news arena, FOX consistently beats out the other news channels in prime-time. Now apparently this hurts President Obama's feelings as he stated in an interview with CNBC, " First of all, I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration."

When CNBC's John Harwood quickly identified the station as FOX News, the President responded,"Well, that's a pretty big megaphone, and you'd be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front." He obviously doesn't watch FOX all day because they have opposing viewpoints on constantly and many of them are very positive of the President and his agenda.

Obama felt comfortable in continuing with this, "We welcome people who are asking us some, you know, tough questions, and I think that I've been probably as accessible as any president in the first six months–press conferences, taking questions from reporters, being held accountable, being transparent about what it is that we're trying to do. I think that, actually, the reason that people have been generally positive about what we've tried to do is they feel as if I'm available and willing to answer questions, and we haven't been trying to hide them all."

Accessible? Accountable? Transparent? This President and administration have been anything but. His so-called press conferences were nothing but teleprompter sightings with questions from reporters who were preselected. That's what I call accessibility. The only person that Obama holds accountable for anything is Bush. He whines and blames the Bush administration every chance he gets. The only transparency that Obama and his administration have displayed so far is letting the public know what restaurant and Broadway show he and his wife went to on date night.

Let's not forget his comment at the White House Correspondents dinner, "Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me, apologies to the Fox table." Joke or not, he knows who in the media serve as his "megaphone."

We are supposed to feel confident in a fair analysis of Obama's health care plan because ABC claims that they, and they alone will pick the people to take part in the town-hall-style question and answer session. They will ensure that the President will have to answer tough questions. This is the equivalent of a kid in school getting a copy of the math exam the night before it is given. There will be no tough questions for Obama and I am confident that ABC will make sure of that.

Grab a Calculator the Math is Getting Fuzzy

By: Jill Serbousek

I admit to needing a calculator when doing math problems that involve multiple digits. I even resort to using a spreadsheet because my calculator isn’t great when doing problems in the trillions. So, as I read through the news reports, government reports and analyst summaries, I actually attempt to keep up with them on the math. Sometimes the methodology and assumptions are tough to understand, but the math should make sense right? The hardest part is that they never give you all of the numbers that are needed to reproduce their answers. Often the ‘denominator’ or some key factor is missing. When this occurs, I try to track down the source reports that are referenced. This is typically when I get really concerned…..

Here are some of the “facts” currently being discussed:

• An additional “$1 trillion over 10 years will be needed to cover the uninsured”, however, according to the Congressional Budget Office “36 million people would still be uninsured.” I need help understanding this one. Why would we change our entire healthcare system to compound the cost and not even take care of those that were supposed to receive help?

• Obama stated that the government could save $106B by cutting federal payments to hospitals. Wouldn’t cutting federal payments further hinder the Medicaid program’s success in caring for it’s participants?

• “…cost control (is) a coequal objective, just as important as the expansion of insurance coverage…” according to Rahm Emmanuel. Nobody will argue that reducing/controlling costs should always be a focus. However, I have yet to read an article where the government is willing to evaluate the costs that they directly impose on the healthcare industry. According to Christopher Conover, in 2004 the government imposed nearly $340B per year on regulation of the healthcare industry. I’m sure that this number has been increasing. His report also points out that almost half of this is wasteful. Hmmm… a great example of how regulation leads to increased costs. Why isn’t the government looking more closely at the cost/benefit of how they directly impact the overall costs?

• Another major cost factor that is being treated as the ‘elephant in the room’ is the cost of defensive medicine. It is unrealistic to reduce the cost of healthcare without also evaluating how the legal system drives up the cost of care with increased number of diagnostic tests, medical malpractice insurance, litigation, etc. Obama actually dipped his toe in the water with this topic, but took a cap on malpractice awards off the table. (Which, according to the reports, received a loud “boo” from the audience) Of course, he is a lawyer. Plus, one of the largest lobbying groups in America, who uses 95% of their PAC funds for the Democratic party, is the American Association for Justice. This is a fund for trial lawyers and law firms. You can learn more about all of the lobbying groups in America at Open Secrets’ website. This is an awesome and informative site.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php?Type=C&cycle=2008

• Speaking of the costs that “defensive medicine” adds to the system, it was shocking to me that the whitehouse’s healthcare economic report does not even address the cost of defensive medicine or government regulatory costs in their self-proclaimed “comprehensive” cost report on healthcare. Not even a mention. As if the entire cost of care and coverage is the fault of doctors, insurance companies and industry. Obama had the chance to recognize that defensive medicine is the reason why doctors order “more diagnostic tests than necessary” when he spoke to the American Medical Association this week. However, he chose to blame those alleged “unnecessary” tests on the doctor’s “financial incentives.” That is a VERY broad and unproven allegation. Just ask a doctor, any doctor in the United States, about their practice costs. They will ALL tell you that the threat of being sued is their biggest worry, and the insurance to help them if this happens is one of the largest, if not largest costs. Guess who this cost is passed to? The consumers/insurance companies who pay for the doctor’s services. We simply cannot reform healthcare costs without looking at legal costs associated with medicine.



About Jill Serbousek:
Jill has been a marketing executive in the Medical Device industry for the past 20 years. First at Johnson & Johnson, then at Medtronic’s Spinal and Biologics business. She is a recognized expert, writer and frequent speaker on both web marketing and social networking in healthcare.
Jill lives in Memphis, TN and sits on the Board of Directors for several important organizations in the Memphis area, including: National Civil Rights Museum, The Church Health Center, Memphis Academy of Science and Engineering Charter School and The Leadership Academy.