Re: Judaism or Calvinism? (was: Re: Jewish unity re children's health bill)

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:43:38 +0000 (UTC), hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Herman Rubin) wrote:

You've provided some thought-provoking ideas here, Herman. But does
Judaism somehow *require* the unequal distribution of resources? All
resources, or some?

I can find nothing which requires the equal distribution
of ANY resources. There are specific sections of the Torah
regarding the treatment of the rich and poor; this assumes
that there will be rich and poor.

I think you missed my principle point, which appears below: namely
that if pragmatism *allows* state control of a resource such as law
enforcement, why not also apply that reasoning to healthcare, which is
an equally important resource? Just because a thing is not *required*
doesn't mean it's prohibited, right?

If I might reference your comment regarding police and the military:
the necessity of their being in public service is, as you point out,
essentially pragmatic, not moral. I believe the same is true of
healthcare. It's just too important to left to the vagaries of the
marketplace, both for the individual and for society at large.

Furthermore, in a democracy you're never going to obtain any kind of
laissez faire healthcare system that responds only to market forces
and the advance of pure science. There is simply too much pressure
from constituents to allow legislatures to keep their hands off of Big
Medicine. So, again from an essentially pragmatic standpoint, you're
never going to have a free-market system. Not in this area at least.

In a true democracy, there is essentially no freedom, and
it is as tyrannical as things get. The religious persecutions
in New England were definitely consistent with democracy.

Well, I'm talking about the US. What's happening here. We have an
active media and legislatures that respond to the pressures it
creates.

We will have that anyhow. But we must either get rid of
clearly illegal intruders (our house does not have open
doors to admit anyone; even during the relatively open
immigration period, sick people were not admitted), or
we will have an ever increasing host of them, and all
will become poor.

Well, this is veering off-topic (not your fault, of course), but I've
known people who came here illegally who did very well. One very close
friend of mine came here from Central America, educated herself,
worked hard and wound up owning multiple houses, paying mucho taxes
and providing more wealth into the system than she took out.

We need better immigration laws, and alternatives to the vast
powers of consular officials to decide who will get visas.
But we cannot invite everyone, and the US is populated well
beyond its resources now.

Our wealth and our proximity invite them.

And this gives another reason why so-called "adequate" health
cannot be given to all. The number of people required to
provide it is too high, and even the rich cannot get what I'
would consider to be adequate by the standards of today's
knowledge and engineering. We need a medical system which
can provide the information about what to do to all who have
the mental capacity to understand it, and let them decide.
I assure you that the time and effort which I need to get
anything close to that is at this time far too great.

I disagree that we don't have the resources to provide adequate care
to all. Of course, part of the process is defining "adequate" and this
emphasizes preventive care.

As for providing information, we have that, the WWW. But it's one
thing to know what to do, quite another to have the means and
resources to do it.

Israel may be able to seal off parts of the West Bank and Gaza, but
the US/Mexico border is far too vast to be sealed off effectively.

If we make it too dangerous to cross, we can do so.

Again, you're pretending there's no media to show images of small
children or women crushed on highways, or electrocuted by fences or
drowned in fast-moving rivers.

It would,
for example, be Constitutional to enslave anyone convicted of
entering the country illegally. Just sending them back is of
little value.

No. It's not. The 13th amendment permits "involuntary servitude" for
criminals, but not slavery. If we enslaved illegals would we be able
to sell them, their children? Would they be able to buy their freedom
in time?

And what jobs would these slave-illegals actually do?

So, it's fine to say let's get rid of the illegals or bar them entry,
but the implementation is quite another thing.

See the above. There are different types of illegal aliens,
and we can make the costs different.

No. Sorry. The implementation remains problemmatic for the reasons
already stated.

Is there something inherently unJewish about recognizing that wealth
has consequences, particularly when a wealthy nation shares a long
border with a poor one?

We see what happens when the poor one does nothing to
alleviate its poverty, and the wealthy one does not
do enough to ensure the border. This has happened in
the past; the Germanic tribes, claiming to be fleeing
enemies, but really overpopulation, were allowed into
the Roman Empire, and destroyed it.

Wasn't that simple, Herman. Without the Germans Rome's military might
would have faltered long before it did. In fact, compared to other
imperial powers, I think Rome was singularly successful. How many
other empires endured for as long, or left such a legacy? Whatever
they did, we should probably do;-)

There have been cases where Jews have allied themselves
with others, but attempting to share the wealth only leaves
all poor. Tevye does not ask why all are not wealthy, but
only whether God could not have made him wealthy. He does
not begrudge the wealthy their perquisites, but asks if he
could not be in their number.

I agree with Tevye. I don't begrudge the wealthy their prerequisites.
I just question whether or not adequate healthcare ought to be one of
them. From a moral and legal standpoint we expect the police to
investigate the killing of a poor man with the same ferver they would
use to investigate the killing of a wealthy one. To accept otherwise
would be to allow society as we know it to unravel.

Do we?

Imagine a police spokesperson telling the five o-clock news that while
the victim of a car-jacking was a loving mother of three, she was also
poor, worked part-time and depended on food stamps to make ends meet,
so we'll give it about a week or so, and if the killer doesn't show up
and confess we're going to move on.

Yes and no; we try harder for the rich, and
fortunately for the investigation, finding the killers
of the poor is usually easier, if it can be done at all.
Serial murders of prostitutes are essentially hopeless,
as are other serial killings, mostly of the poor.

I'm talking about expectation, which doesn't always coincide with
reality.

So it is, I believe, with healthcare.

The resources are just not there. The 20% of national
income now claimed to being spent in the US for healthcare
is not enough to provide adequate healthcare.

I might be if the need to create profit for investors was taken out of
the picture.

And healthcare is *extremely* profitable for entrepreneurs.

Even a system such as Britain's (which has never seriously been
proposed here)--in which healthcare providers actually work for the
state--is no more socialist than a nation in which police, fire, EMS
and the military all work for the government.

Because of their powers, police and the military must
"work for the government". There are fairly good reasons
why fire departments need to have government ties, but
there are no reasons why EMS needs to be connected with
the government, and usually it is only partially so.

And finally, is Medicare (CMS) socialist and unJewish?

Very definitely so. If provides whatever care the
government states should be provided, at government
prices. If carried much further, it will even eliminate
additional private care.

Again, saying that Judaism doesn't *require* equal distribution of
resources doesn't seem to me the same thing as saying it forbids it.

The discussion in the Torah and Talmud seem to expect
unequal distribution of resources. Attempting to
equalize resources just makes all poor; there are not
enough wealthy people to "spread the wealth".

Again, I'm talking about one resource. I'm not singing John Lennon's
"Imagine" here.

I do believe in market solutions to most problems. Above you speak of
paying out of pocket for most healthcare encounters. That works for me
just fine, 'cept I don't have pockets that deep and know of few who
do. We can *talk* about ways in which an affordable fee-for-service
system might be revived here (maybe your illegal alien-slaves could be
trained as primary care providers?), but unless there's a realistic
chance to implement them talk is all it'll ever be.

Andy Katz
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Judaism or Calvinism? (was: Re: Jewish unity re childrens health bill)
    ... Judaism somehow *require* the unequal distribution of resources? ... that there will be rich and poor. ... The purpose of a constitution is to LIMIT government; ... particularly when a wealthy nation shares a long ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Katrina
    ... The people that were too poor ... | resources - the money, manpower, materiel, transport - that could ... | sector - the common good - wither and die on the vine. ... Bush even ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Re: The post job era
    ... /really/ sucks to be poor this century. ... It is true at the moment that the world's resources are adequate to ... Food production ... Much of what the rich world enjoys as luxuries, though, comes from ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Hezbollah: islamofascism on the rise
    ... There aren't enough resources to go around. ... If someone is poor, it can only be because someone else is rich ... Therefore the wealthy are responsible for poverty. ... If a country builds an industry it consumes far greater resources ...
    (soc.culture.greek)
  • Re: Exxon, Conoco to Put Oily Dildo in Huge-Hugos Venezuelan Ass
    ... The poor in Venezuela have *never* had it so good as they have it ... resources and taking control over public communication. ... a guy who speaks out against Bush, no matter what Chavez does. ...
    (alt.politics)