news-record.com

OPINION

Rabbi Fred Guttman: Please, some civility in the health care debate

Sunday, August 16, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

 

A few weeks ago, I and three Rabbinic colleagues were among the 3,000 people who heard President Obama speak about health care in Raleigh.

On the way out, we passed a demonstrator who was holding a sign that said, "ObamaCare = National Socialism" (aka Nazism). I confronted this protester, telling him that, as a rabbi and as a Jew, I found his sign particularly offensive.

I mentioned that I accepted his right to disagree with the president and to express such disagreement. However, comparing Obama's health care plan to the rule of the Nazi Party in Germany was terribly hurtful to Jews who had lost one-third of their population, 6 million souls, to the Nazi death machine. Indeed, it is an affront to us all.

When I lived in Israel, I had the opportunity to meet on several occasions with a woman named Ruth Eliaz, an Auschwitz survivor.

Most pregnant women and women with young children were sent directly to the gas chambers as soon as the cattle car transports arrived at Auschwitz. Ruth, pregnant at the time, wasn't showing and was selected to be a worker. As her pregnancy continued, she tried her best to cover her stomach, knowing that if she were to be discovered, she would be sent directly to the gas chamber. Eventually the pregnancy could not be hidden any longer. Ruth was taken to the infamous Nazi doctor, Josef Mengele.

In Auschwitz, Mengele conducted horrific experiments on Jews. Mengele told Ruth that he had something special in mind for her and that he would allow her to continue the pregnancy to term. After Ruth gave birth to a baby boy, she began to breast-feed the child. Mengele had her brought to him, whereupon he strapped her to a gurney and injected her breasts with poison so she would not be able to feed her baby. The purpose of this "experiment" was to see how long a newborn baby could live without being fed. After several days of seeing her child suffer, Ruth could stand it no longer and smothered her own child.

This terrible story actually has somewhat of a decent ending. After the war, Ruth made it to Israel where she married, and they had two children of their own.

I relate this story because we need to truly understand what "health care" meant for Jews who had the misfortune of living under the rule of National Socialism.

Recently, Rush Limbaugh weighed in on health care, calling grassroots supporters of President Obama "the real brownshirts." His Web site has shown an Obama health care logo next to a Nazi symbol.

Legitimate disagreements -- yes. But comparing the proposals under consideration to Nazi policies is beyond the bounds of proper political discourse.

In 1996, I met Leah Rabin, the wife of the Israeli prime minister who had been assassinated a year earlier by a lone Jewish gunman. Prior to his assassination, Prime Minister Rabin's opponents had held demonstrations where signs showing his face pasted on a picture of a Nazi SS uniform were held up. Leah Rabin blamed her political opponents for not forcefully condemning such hysterical propaganda in their own ranks, which had created the atmosphere necessary for the crazed assassin to be cultivated.

Folks, we are dealing with fire.

The health care debate in our country is at a critical crossroads. A lot is at stake for our future, but the way in which we need to find a solution to this problem needs to be civil and respectful.

I would like to suggest a few additional assumptions upon which the current discussion needs to be based. These are:

1. Scare tactics based upon false information have no place in this discussion. For example, it is a gross statement to say that encouraging doctors to speak with their patients about a "living will" is a government plot to kill elderly people. The Nazis referred to this type of propaganda as their "Big Lie" technique; they would repeat a falsehood so often until the public accepted it as true.

2. Our current system of health care is not as good as we think it is. According to the World Health Organization, while the United States spends more money on health care than any other nation, our overall rank is 37th in terms of the quality of health care for the entire population.

3. Doing nothing is not an option. Currently, 18 percent of the GNP is siphoned toward health care -- the highest rate in the developed world. By doing nothing to curb this growth, health care premiums and deductibles will continue to rise and fewer small businesses will be able provide health care as a benefit to their employees.

4. Finally, the figures for the cost of health care from the Congressional Budget Office need to be taken seriously. Current plans in the House which could add a trillion dollars to the deficit are not acceptable. Cost-cutting measures are a critical component of any heath care reform or expansion of coverage. By the way, the president himself has stated that he will not sign a health care bill which is not revenue neutral.

We are living during a very difficult time as far as health care is concerned. Finding a solution will necessitate not only a lot of creative thinking, but will also require a lot of civility and respectful debate.

Perhaps most important, it will require a lot of prayer, for we will need God's help as a nation to take us from where health care is today to the place where it ought to be, a place wherein all of us, as holy manifestations of the Divine, will have access to high-quality and affordable health care.

Fred Guttman is rabbi of Temple Emanuel in Greensboro.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

mamaboilermaker

August 16, 2009 - 6:33 am EDT

Agreed, the Nazi business is inappropriate. Nothing in America today compares to the horrendous atrocities endured by your people. It is just as inappropriate when Pelosi uses the word to describe ordinary people who simply don't believe in government control of all health care. She was just as disrespectful--perhaps more so, since she is a national figure. Swastikas are ugly, horrible things and should not be used by EITHER SIDE. Did you also send Pelosi a letter telling her how offensive she was?

Andrew Brod

August 16, 2009 - 11:11 am EDT

As I've noted on another N&R blog, Pelosi did NOT accuse reform opponents of being Nazis. What she accused them of was using Nazi symbols to attack the president. You've gotten it backwards. As just one example, there's this from Obama's recent town-hall meeting in New Hampshire:

http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/resources/obamax625aug12.jpg

See the picture of Obama in front of the swastika? It's simply not true that both sides are using Nazi imagery and slurs. Only the opponents of health-care reform are doing it. Please get your facts straight.

rmacz

August 16, 2009 - 10:39 am EDT

I find myself disagreeing with a very wise man. Guttman leaves out that Germany had socialized health care for their citizens. Even though were're 37th in the world for health care, look at the way ratings are formulated, and most of the best hospitals in the world are in the USA. Guttman uses his number one rule very well, he leaves out the whole context of what Limbaugh what saying about the Nazi symbol. Rush Limbaugh was only comparing that to a tactic Nancy Pelosi was using. I don't believe in separation from Church and State, but in this case, like Guttman said that we will have to pray for God's help, in which we agree on. God bless you Rabbi!

Andrew Brod

August 16, 2009 - 11:07 am EDT

Rabbi Guttman is on the money, with one exception. He says we should take the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of the various reform proposals as gospel (sorry, Rabbi). In fact, we should take them with a very big grain of salt. CBO has been shown repeatedly to be quite bad at analyzing the NET costs of health-care bills. The problem isn't a partisan bias, because CBO bends over backwards to be even-handed and non-partisan. The problem is CBO's methodology, which both overestimates costs and underestimates potential savings. Controlling long-term costs is one of the two big goals of health-care reform, and a more comprehensive analysis would factor in the future savings from eliminating the worst inefficiencies of our current system. I don't know if CBO is prevented from doing this, or whether it chooses not to get into the deeper analysis needed to factor in the cost savings. But whatever the reason, it doesn't do this.

The bottom line is that the $1 trillion price tag is almost certainly a significant over-estimate, and therefore it should not be taken seriously except as a starting point for more comprehensive analysis of the NET costs of reform. To be sure, health-care reform won't be free, especially in the near term. But the potential economic benefits are huge.

dcolin

August 16, 2009 - 3:23 pm EDT

The budget is really not the issue

When you are up to your ass in alligators you do something with the swamp.

highly successful enterprise/needed solutions are not run by blind allegiance to budgets.

If they were we would have let Adolph run Europe.
We would not have invaded Iraqi.( Don't jump on me someone considered it vital )
Gone to the moon.
Reduce aircraft maintainence rules

Andrew Brod

August 16, 2009 - 9:14 pm EDT

I agree that the budget isn't the big issue. But it is to the angry mobs.

jbcarper

August 17, 2009 - 11:59 am EDT

Please give us an example where the government under-estimated savings and over-estimated costs? I don't know of any program that falls within this criteria. Certainly not the military, Social Security, Postal Service, NCLB, ....

dcolin

August 16, 2009 - 3:21 pm EDT

"We are living during a very difficult time as far as health care is concerned. Finding a solution will necessitate not only a lot of creative thinking, but will also require a lot of civility and respectful debate."

No.

That never works. Or actually happens

Get your ducks in order and push it over the goal line
It can always be changed.

mamaboilermaker

August 16, 2009 - 7:43 pm EDT

No, it can't "always be changed." Government programs, once begun, almost never end. Politicians never have the guts to end programs, even when they are obsolete. Programs are added, but never subtracted, thus government is choking us with agencies, regulations, taxes, and programs--all of which were begun for some ostensibly good purpose.

camelcityman27105

August 17, 2009 - 6:37 am EDT

All of the blasphemous and downright rude Obama-Hitler protesters, including those acidic talk-show hosts, owe our President an apology, and many of them need to visit the Oval Office to apologize in person. Adolf Hitler was one of the world's most vile and murderous tyrants, who would have never allowed any black man, let alone a black U.S. President, obtain the notoriety to be compared as an equal. The Holocaust was not a trivial moment in history when millions of innocent Jews met death in the gas chambers because of racism and hate. After the black athlete Jesse Owens won his race at the German Olympics nearly 70 years ago and disproved Aryan theories on the "superior race," Hitler shuttered at the thought of standing next to a black man and shaking his hand, so he elected instead to abruptly leave the stadium with his cortège. Barack Obama is definitely no Hitler, and using a tyrant's image in political ads to propel fear and misinformation into the citizenry as a means of defeating a much-needed public health-care plan is a disgrace, and has no proper place in the political discussion. Unfortunately, it looks as if the President has succumbed to this tactic: Rush Limbaugh should be permanently dropped from the airwaves and wires because he and his allies have all prostituted their right to free speech and created an volatile atmosphere of hysteria and skewed reasoning.

minkheel

August 17, 2009 - 3:08 pm EDT

Agreed that the comparisons of Obama to Hitler are incredibly inappropriate and way over the line. Also, Hilter was not a socialist (which is on the far political left) he was a facist (which is very far on the political right). Also, to argue that "Hitler had socialized medicine" is nonsensical. This debate is not about "socialized medicine." There is nothing in ANY of the legislation about creating "socialized medicine" -- which is a system where the government owns all the hospitals and employs the doctors. The reform proposals -- at root -- are about providing some form of affordable, guaranteed issue insurance for everyone regardless of income or preexisting conditions. [Note that this has existed to a more limited extent in the form of Medicare and Medicaid].

Having such insurance could actually reduce the cost of care for those of us who have insurance because many of the uninsured now go to their local emergency room for everything. The hospitals (at least all non-profit hospitals, which is most of them) have to treat them. When there is no payment forthcoming, the hospital eats that cost which gets passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher charges (which results in higher insurance rates).

So, what is the non-hysterical opposition to such a thing?

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search