Washington — One of the largest and most influential Jewish groups has signed on for the first time in support of universal health care in the United States.
United Jewish Communities, an umbrella group for local Jewish federations, pushed its members to lobby over the July 4 weekend for health care reform that would provide universal coverage. In talking points sent out to federation activists, and to members of local Jewish community relations committees, activists were urged to tell their elected officials that “any health care reform effort should ensure that every individual and family has access to qualified medical professionals and providers for their care, regardless of income or other barriers.”
While a number of other Jewish organizations in Washington have long lobbied for universal health care, the federations traditionally viewed health care reform through their own prism, as owners of hospitals and senior care facilities. As such, the federations and their national advocacy efforts historically focused more narrowly on ensuring government funding for these programs, regardless of the issue of universal accessibility to health care.
Last May, though, UJC decided to sign on to a joint statement with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, dedicating both groups to lobbying for universal health care based on the “moral mandate from our Jewish tradition” and on their experience as health care service providers.
“Now people are working together for both causes: universal health care and funding for health care services,” said Hadar Susskind, vice president of public policy and Washington director of the JCPA. Susskind, who was involved in the negotiations that led to signing the joint statement, said, “We see it as a fundamental issue that will make the federation system involved in the broader issue of reforming health care.”
UJC is so important because it represents 157 federations and 400 independent communities that raise and distribute more than $3 billion each year. It is the largest provider of social services in the Jewish community, and as such it is the key organization dealing with government funding for community-based services.
UJC is wading slowly into the waters. William Daroff, UJC’s vice president of public policy, did not acknowledge that the recent lobbying represents a major change, although he did recognize that his mandate has been broadened because of the new cooperation with the JCPA on health care reform.
“I don’t think this is a shift. It is smart politics,” Daroff said. “We want to be inside the tent for these discussions because of their critical importance for the Jewish community.”
During the lobbying weekend, UJC gave local Jewish activists a push to promote current federation programs alongside a broader change that would enable universal health care for Americans. UJC told its lobbyists also to focus on Medicare and Medicaid funding, which are crucial for Jewish nursing homes and old-age facilities.
One potential sticking point for UJC is the Obama administration’s plan to decrease tax deductions on charitable giving for high-income individuals. The change has been proposed as a way of securing funding for an overhaul of the health care system but UJC has argued strenuously against it.
Daroff would not say if the group would part ways with the JCPA on health care if its concerns, mainly those regarding charitable tax deductions, are not met. Current versions of health care legislation do not include the measure, but it is too early in the legislative process to know what the final language will contain.
Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and a longtime supporter of universal health care, said he believed that all Jewish groups hold strong views on the need for an accessible health care system.
“I’d be surprised if any Jewish group would back off because of any particular interest,” he said.
Saperstein spoke after an interfaith lobbying day July 7, during which leaders of 15 faith groups spoke with legislators and administration officials in support of universal health care. Among the attendees were representatives of many Jewish groups that are actively advocating for passage of health care reform. Saperstein believes that this turnout proves how important the issue is viewed within the community.
“Health care reform will not happen without the political drumbeat for the absolute moral commitment, and the Jewish community is important in determining this moral commitment,” he said.
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com
What is so difficult about going the "Atlee way" and creating our version of the NHS?
What is it in the Jewish tradition that causes us to favor socialized medicine? I have escaped USSR and its miserable medical system and now this group of misguided do gooders want to install the same nightmare in US?
It is frankly embarrassing to think that the UJC purports to speak on behalf of Jews in this country. Anyone with even a bit of knowledge about government-funded healthcare is aware that Medicare and Medicaid are effectively bankrupt to the point where there is no conceivable way of paying the costs of those programs in the coming years. Yet the UJC is advocating for even more government-sponsored entitlement programs. With newly created deficits enough to make one's head spin -- thanks the Wunderkind in Washington -- where does the UJC expect the funds to come from? Ultimately, there is no question but that the result of all this will be a crushing tax burden imposed on our children and a government run healthcare system that seriously rations care, as is done in Europe and Canada.
The product of health insurance is to provide you with medical coverage when you need it. Unlike other businesses that need to provide you with their product in order to make any money, health insurance companies actually make more money for themselves when they restrict and do not pay claims. In other words, they make more money when they do NOT provide the product that you have paid them for.
Read the 50 to 70 pages of your health insurance contract. Pay particular attention to the section entitled “limitations and exclusions”. People’s health is not a product that needs to be left to the whims of money motivated CEO’s and stockholders. If that is your thinking, you might as well have your police and fire department protection based on insurance premiums you pay. Then you can go to the police and fire protection insurance page for ‘limitations and exclusions’ on whether or not the police or fire department would come out to your house in the event of an emergency.
The point is, you would never think of discriminating against another citizen if he was the victim of a fire or crime. So why would you be ok with health insurance companies discriminating against fellow citizens who have pre-existing medical conditions?
As a Veteran,I am very happy with being covered by the VA medical program.For the buck,the VA medical plan provides the best medical coverage you could ever ask for.It is government run,at a low cost, with the best medical care around.Now if this kind of program was open for everyone it would be a blessing.Judaism And HaShem,demands that we as Jews,must care for one another.Only right wing-nuts would be against such a public option.
Only left wing Socialist Jews can come up with this crazy idea called National Health Insurance. This form of insurance only can work if a country is limited in population or has one ethnic characterization. Sweden is a good example of having one ethnic background. The majority of the population is white, Lutheran, basically of one ethnic stock. Yet with all of Sweden's socialistic health care sick people in order to get help must travel around the world including going to Israel to get help. There is rationing for health care in Sweden. Most Canadians will travel to the USA for treatment, they even go to Mexico simply because the waiting lines are too long for care in Canada. Jews by nature are socialist. Nothing new here. They voted in droves for their messiah Obama and if Obama taxes them to death, so what, they have the money. It's the rest of us that I am worrying about.
It is appropriate for Jews to strive for everyone to have quality health care. It may be "smart politics" to be in the room when the goodies get handed out (as they no doubt will -- look at the trade-offs on climate change legislation). But it is not good public policy to create single-payer government insurance, or a system that will make single-payer government insurance inevitable in a few years. The certain result will be bureaucrats deciding what treatments you can have and when. In Canada, it is against the law for doctors who are registered in the system to get paid to treat people outside it. Does that mean everyone gets the same treatment? No. At the top of the heap are those who can pull strings -- politicians, celebrities, and those who have connections with doctors. Is that good for the Jews? Maybe in the short term.
It would be nice to think we could approach things as simplistically as Mr. Hardisty suggests by stating, "we as Jews, must care for one another" and, thus, socialized medicine (i.e., the "public option") is warranted. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. When countries with government-sponsored (i.e. socialized) medical care are compared with the United States, the data show that the probability of surviving cancer is far higher in the United States. Thus, the Concord and other studies have shown the following:
"For the sixteen types of cancer . . . American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent, compared with only 47 percent for European men. In Europe, only Sweden has an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent. American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent for European women; only five European countries have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
"Looking at specific cancers yields striking results: For men, the bladder cancer survival rate in the United States is 15 percent higher than the European average. With prostate cancer, the gap is even larger: 28 percent. For American women, the uterine cancer survival rate is 5 percent higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percent higher. The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid, and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular). Lung cancer, once considered a death sentence, now has better survival rates over five years—and Americans do better than Europeans, 16 percent versus 11 percent."
(David Gratzer, Socialism and Cancer, The New Atlantis, Winter 2009, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/article_detail.asp?id=469&css=print)
For a frightening look at how Britain's rationing system operates, see Of Nice and Men, Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html#printMode.
Thus, when we recognize that the US provides the highest quality of healthcare in the world, it should be the proponents of radical change who bear the burden of demonstrating that their proposals will not result in a degrading of that quality. For those who insist that it is somehow a "Jewish value" to advocate for government-sponsored health care, I would offer that it is also a fundamental Jewish value preserve and save lives, and adopting a model of healthcare which results in far more deaths as compared to the current US model is hardly consistent with that Jewish value.
It would be nice to think we could approach things as simplistically as Mr. Hardisty suggests by stating, "we as Jews, must care for one another" and, thus, socialized medicine (i.e., the "public option") is warranted. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. When countries with government-sponsored (i.e. socialized) medical care are compared with the United States, the data show that the probability of surviving cancer is far higher in the United States. Thus, the Concord and other studies have shown the following:
"For the sixteen types of cancer . . . American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent, compared with only 47 percent for European men. In Europe, only Sweden has an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent. American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent for European women; only five European countries have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
"Looking at specific cancers yields striking results: For men, the bladder cancer survival rate in the United States is 15 percent higher than the European average. With prostate cancer, the gap is even larger: 28 percent. For American women, the uterine cancer survival rate is 5 percent higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percent higher. The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid, and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular). Lung cancer, once considered a death sentence, now has better survival rates over five years—and Americans do better than Europeans, 16 percent versus 11 percent."
(David Gratzer, Socialism and Cancer, The New Atlantis, Winter 2009, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/article_detail.asp?id=469&css=print)
For a frightening look at how Britain's rationing system operates, see Of Nice and Men, Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html#printMode.
Thus, when we recognize that the US provides the highest quality of healthcare in the world, it should be the proponents of radical change who bear the burden of demonstrating that their proposals will not result in a degrading of that quality. For those who insist that it is somehow a "Jewish value" to advocate for government-sponsored health care, I would offer that it is also a fundamental Jewish value preserve and save lives, and adopting a model of healthcare which results in far more deaths as compared to the current US model is hardly consistent with that Jewish value.
I may have to choose between having government bureaucrat or an insurance company clerk determine which provider treats me. If the health insurance industry was providing adequate service to us, this debate would not be taking place.
Gene
For many in the USA, it is the inability to get insurance if you have had a serious or life threatening disease. A friend who is now working part time because of cutbacks, must pay 900 dollars a month. His income is a little over double that. He is losing his house, his car, and is suicidal. Healthy people, rich people, those of privilege, have good care even in backward countries. What can we do for these people who do not want to go on welfare? Which form of socialism is worse? I think those who try to do things for themselves deserve more consideration.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.