Seidemann: Show me a sign

From the other side of the bench

By David Seidemann

Issue of Dec. 25, 2009 / 8 Tevet 5769

It seems as if an overhaul of the health care system will take place in one form or another. The Democrats in the Senate gathered the 60 votes they needed to prevent a Republican filibuster, and to pass another procedural vote on Tuesday. There's lots of tinkering left to be done; whatever bill emerges from the Senate has to be reconciled with the House version. Then, separate votes need to be taken in order to pass any proposed reforms. It is doubtful that President Obama will achieve his entire wish list but, as they say, change is a comin'.

Not that I think either of my proposals have a chance of being included in the final version of the bill, but here are two changes I would like to see. I think that doctors should have to reimburse patients for the amount of time that the patient spends in the doctor's waiting room. The longer the patient waits to see the doctor, the less the patient pays the doctor. If past experience is any barometer, this will greatly reduce the overall cost of healthcare.

And while we're on the subject of time, the second sweeping change I would like to see implemented is a limit on the amount of time a dentist can set up shop inside one's mouth. I had such an experience last week. I should've known I was going to be at my dentist's mercy for a while when he ordered dinner for his office staff and placed a "men working" sign outside of my mouth. It was as if Sarah Palin was standing over my dentist's shoulder encouraging him to "drill, baby, drill." All in all, I spent an hour and 15 minutes undergoing what could be considered enhanced interrogation techniques. By the time my dentist was done I had confessed to crimes not yet committed.

Truth be told, I had set myself up for the torture. I ignored a cavity that had been bothering me for a while. Had I not ignored the obvious the ensuing pain might have been limited. Ironically, at times it is the obvious that seems to fall by the wayside.

Pharaoh has a dream of seven skinny cows devouring seven fat cows. He then dreams of seven thin stalks of wheat consuming seven robust stalks of wheat. His advisers interpret the dreams to mean that the king would father seven daughters and then bury those seven daughters. Pharaoh rejects that interpretation and instead accepts Joseph's: that the dreams relate to the world economy and the world food supply symbolized by cows (meat) and wheat (bread). The interpretation of the king's advisers was rejected because its relevance was too distant. The king would have to wait at least nine months for any part of the dream to come to fruition.

Joseph's interpretation was relevant immediately, for Egypt already was in control of an abundance of meat and bread. This fact was obvious to Pharaoh and therefore Joseph's interpretation resonated with him.

Don't dreams often refer to the future, one could legitimately ask? If so, why would Pharaoh automatically reject an interpretation that spoke of the future? The answer can be found in a seemingly insignificant aspect of the dream that was relayed by Pharaoh to his advisers and to Joseph. He stated that he was "standing" by the Nile. That seemingly insignificant detail connoted that whatever this dream symbolized, was taking place in the present tense. Joseph viewed that with great significance; it pointed him to an interpretation that dealt with the present. The king's advisors glossed over those words and therefore erred and offered an interpretation whose time had not yet come.

The Egyptian king was astute enough to realize that if he saw himself standing in the present while the rest of the dream unfolded, then the true interpretation had to deal with the here and now. The message is in the details and no detail can be overlooked. More often than not, it is the lawyer who has mastered the details of his case, who emerges victorious. Throwing one's hands up in the air and hoping for the best sometimes works - but not with enough certainty to make it a wise course of action.

Last Thursday night in Baltimore, MD, I attended the wedding of my niece. The wedding was beautiful; no detail was overlooked. Hours later I turned our minivan northward, returning to New York to celebrate the engagement of another niece. She, her parents, her sister and her husband, and the new fiancé spent a wonderful Shabbos together as we got to know this young man we were about to welcome into our family. His interaction with our family was wonderful and I believe foreshadowed his behavior for the future. But all Shabbos long, there was one detail I still wanted to see. There was one present tense detail that I wished to observe in the hope that it would give me a glimpse of how he would treat my niece in the future.

I saw that detail Saturday night as his parents, brothers and extended family joined us for a small engagement party. I saw how this young man interacted with and treated his parents and what I saw brought a smile to my face and heart. What I saw was a healthy relationship, a health plan that was not in need of reform. What I observed were robust sheaves of wheat and healthy livestock all pointing to a future life of happy dreams and an even happier reality.

To me, it's a no-brainer. A young man who enjoys a healthy relationship, a loving relationship, and emotional relationship with his parents is well suited to enjoy the same type of relationship with his wife. This is one detail that parents should not overlook when contemplating a life partner for their child.

David Seidemann is a partner with the law firm of Seidemann & Mermelstein.  He can be reached at (718) 692-1013 and at ds@lawofficesm.com.