Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Jews Should Oppose Universal Health Care

posted by David Klinghoffer
E.V.Pavlov_by_Repin.jpg
In the always lively Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Rabbi Elliot Dorff writes in a cover essay that “support for universal health care is an imperative in Jewish law.” Is it now? On health care reform, Rabbi Dorff has his classical sources all lined up — most having to do with obligations on the community to rescue its needy, the captive, and those otherwise endangered. The communal court system can compel a person to give charity in support of the poor. Proper medical services are a necessity in a Jewish community. And so on. Whether through socialized medicine or government health insurance, something must be done: the fact of there being 40 million uninsured Americans is “intolerable.”
Do you notice how many times the words “community” or “communal” appear in the foregoing paragraph? Rabbi Dorff is chairman of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of Conservative (i.e., liberal) Judaism. He knows that Jewish laws of the kind he cites are specifically communal laws. They were never envisioned as applying en masse to a non-Jewish country of 300 million people. Liberal Jewish analysts often lose sight of this simple fact. So too in the abortion debate where, simply put, Jewish law for Jews is more liberal on abortion than Jewish law for Gentiles. We are more protective of the unborn non-Jewish life. In Torah, there are separate legal tracks — the Mosaic and the Noachide, for Jewish and Gentile communities respectively. Yet liberal Jews invariably cite Jewish abortion law, not the Gentile one which makes abortion a death penalty offense. They forget that we live in a non-Jewish country.
Even apart from this, your local Jewish community and the United States of America are incommensurable in many ways. There are three key things about a religious community. It is small in size. It’s homogeneous. And it’s voluntary. The three together make the provision of welfare benefits to members of the community an affordable proposition. None of these are true in the far, far vaster and incomparably more diverse context of our country. I mean, is this not obvious? Practical considerations like this have led Connecticut’s independent senator, Joseph Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, to call for putting off radical health care reform till we can afford it.
If you object that I myself have extrapolated from Jewish to American law many times here in this blog and in my book How Would God Vote?, my answer is that I always try to take care about making clear it’s the philosophical principles behind the laws that can be extrapolated, not the laws themselves. That way lies the road to theocracy.
When it comes to caring for the needy, there are not one but two major Jewish philosophical principles at stake. One is the obligation to provide for the poor. You don’t need any detailed presentation of rabbinic statutes to know that this would apply to the area of health care. It’s right there in the book of Ezekiel. The prophet chastised Israel’s rulers, her “shepherds” for “tending themselves” while ignoring the needs of the flock: “the frail you did not strengthen; the ill you did not cure; the broken you did not blind” (34:2,4).
Counterbalanced with his, however, is the Torah’s overwhelming emphasis on personal responsibility. Apart from being beyond our country’s current means, one problem with government-run universal health care, which is where ObamaCare would inevitably tend, is that it relieves not only the poor but everyone else of their responsibility to see to their own health needs. Rabbi Dorff mentions the “intolerable” plight of the uninsured. How many? The figures you hear from the Left are deceptive because, among other things, they include people who for whatever reason — because they are young and healthy, or maybe older and foolish — think they can get by without insurance.

Truly universal health care would mean mandating that everyone be insured. How else can we all share the burden of paying into the common insurance pool if the healthy or imprudent opt out? In the last election when Democratic candidates were vying with each other to spell out their visions for socialized medicine, John Edwards even wanted to mandate regular medical checkups! Compelling what seems to be common sense, precluding the individual’s freedom to take his chances if he prefers, places “universal health care” on the list of those other liberal political notions that foreclose free choice and moral responsibility. I’ve argued before that the common denominator linking most of the standard liberal policy preferences is a discomfort with the responsibility of an adult to make free choices for himself. (Abortion, of course, is a choice a woman makes for herself but also for the other person in her womb, who if he could speak would likely opt for a pro-life stance.)
The most important word in the Jewish vocabulary is mitzvah, commandment. The idea of a commandment assumes choice — taking responsibility for yourself. When good choices are compelled, they loose meaning. Supporting the poor is such a choice. When it’s forced upon us, the moral significance of the mitzvah is lost.
I wrote earlier about the idea of ritual contaminationtumah. As Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains it, tumah comes from experiences that convey the powerful but erroneous impression that we are not free and therefore not responsible. The classic instance is contact with a corpse. Bound by materiality, its spark of divine spirit having fled to rejoin the Creator, a dead body has the power to hypnotize us with the impression that we ourselves are unfree. Nothing could be more morally perilous than taking such an idea to heart.
Hirsch wrote, commenting on Leviticus (11:46-47): “All these [contamination laws] are truths which, in the face of human frailty and the powers of the forces of nature which the appearance of death preaches, are to be brought again and again to the minds of living people, so that they remain conscious of their unique position of freedom in the midst of the physical world, and remain forever armed in proud consciousness of their freedom, armed against the doctrine of materialism.”
Any truly Jewish approach to caring for the sick and needy would keep in mind the imperative to avoid conveying tumah to the rest of us while we are at it. On the other hand, market solutions to problems like our health care “crisis” have the virtue of casting citizens not as helpless children but as responsible adults. That’s the Torah’s way.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(21)
post a comment
Marian

posted September 3, 2009 at 10:35 am


What is Lieberman’s position on putting off national defense until we can afford it?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted September 3, 2009 at 11:12 am


David: In Torah, there are separate legal tracks — the Mosaic and the Noachide, for Jewish and Gentile communities respectively.
I always try to take care about making clear it’s the philosophical principles behind the laws that can be extrapolated, not the laws themselves. That way lies the road to theocracy.
So how do these two sentences not contradict each other? To say that the Torah has a “separate legal track for the Gentile community” implies on some level that all Gentiles, whether they even recognize the Torah or not, are in some sense bound by it, right? So how is that not, in principle at least, theocratic? Of course, from my understanding, scholarship indicates that such laws are not necessarily for Gentiles at large, but for those living as resident aliens in a Jewish state. The only place in the world where this could apply then would be in Israel, but it is a secular state that does not enforce these laws. So again, how are laws for Gentiles relevant for anyone aside from Noachides who voluntarily choose to follow them?
In this regard, LazarA’s statement from a previous thread is very interesting:
While I doubt David would approve of such a bald statement, I have no problem asserting that Judaism certainly does teach that all other belief systems are fundamentally erroneous (even if, at times, they may carry elements of truth). Christianity, to the degree that it differs with Judaism (which is substantially), is false. Period…. As such, yes, part of the role of the Jewish people is – ultimately – to show the world the falsehood of their current beliefs and to bring them to the true service of God. Yes, this will involve the abandonment of Chrisitianity and all other such religions. (emphasis added)
Which is fine to believe–Christianity and Islam both seek the conversion of the world–but they are explicit about it, whereas few Jews would openly speak as LazarA does here. I’m not saying, David, that you share his views, but talk of what the Torah requires for Gentiles and such can come perilously close to sounding like this. Then again, if this is how you feel, say it explicitly. No skin off my nose either way.
Counterbalanced with his, however, is the Torah’s overwhelming emphasis on personal responsibility.
Why not go to the logical conclusion and abolish government altogether, so that personal responsibility would be maximized? That could even be supported from the OT, where Samuel rails against the idea of even having a king at all!



report abuse
 

Mark

posted September 3, 2009 at 11:41 am


Hey, if Obama is for single payer health care, then I’m for it, too!
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/290794.php
And if Obama is not for single payer health care, then I’m not for it, too!
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/290794.php
Note that the links are the same.



report abuse
 

Yirmi

posted September 3, 2009 at 12:40 pm


Whether Obamacare will lead to a full single-payer type system is a complex question. One may be able to craft an argument, perhaps even based on economic models and so on, claiming that it would lead to such a system. But that is ultimately speculation, and I’m sure equally good (probably better) arguments could be made that it would not lead to nationalized health care. The creation of a public option can have many effects, depending on the way it’s designed, run, and how the market and individual firms react to its presence. So I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that we as Jews must oppose a health care proposal because of the possibility that it would lead to a completely governmental system that would somehow take away our responsibility to take care of our own health. In Judaism life is the ultimate value. The fact is that systems that guarantee health coverage (ie, those of every other prosperous country on the planet) do a lot better job at enhancing life — reducing infant mortality, increasing life-expectancy, and more generally reducing other deaths due to lack of access to medical care. Certainly we need to consider reform proposals carefully to ensure Jewish principles, such as personal autonomy perhaps, are not violated in significant ways (which most health care systems probably do not, in my view), but I agree in principal with the Conservative rabbi that a Jewish perspective would demand action to reform our health care system to make coverage universally available, even if I disagree with the Conservative halachic methods and theological perspective. But I’m afraid your casually metaphorical invocation of the concept of tumah to argue against universal health care is a larger stretch that many of the Conservative arguments that have overthrown basic norms in Judaism.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted September 3, 2009 at 1:23 pm


Excellent post, Yirmi. I think it’s always dangerous to tie policy to religion. David is right in this (before he goes and contradicts himself) in that religion should give us principles, not laws or policy. Whether universal health care is desirable or not, whether market-based or single-payer plans are best, etc., are partly empirical questions (i.e., will it work?) and partly philosophical (i.e., what are the responsibilities of the state, the market, and the individual?). None of these are explicitly religious questions.
Even if one says “Plan X best exemplifies the values and principles of my religion, it may happen that when X is implemented, the actual results turn out far different, perhaps to the extent that it violates one’s principles, after all–law of unintended consequences and all that. Thus, one should be circumspect even in saying that a particular plan is more congruent with one’s religion than others.
I’m not Jewish, but the political agitations associated with my faith, Catholicism, are noteworthy enough. I think it’s really a very bad idea to say, “Jews (or Catholics or Zoroastrians or Hindus or whoever) should (or shouldn’t) support X as a matter of maintaining their religious values.” The values and principles should be laid out plainly; but in the spirit of the mature responsibility that David lauds, each believer should then reflect and decide for himself.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 3, 2009 at 4:33 pm


I do believe that the Gemora in Sanhedrin says that the king was only entitled to tax the nation to maintain the army and the court. Public worsk were paid for out of the excess of the Temple treasury. Social services were administereds by the local courts. So, even if the Torah does mandate universal health care as a form of Tzedaka, it should not be handled by the executive branch of the Federal government.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted September 3, 2009 at 7:02 pm


Your Name: Social services were administereds by the local courts.
So (to use a modern analogy), a state (e.g. Massachusetts) could mandate universal care for its citizens then? And isn’t this still coercive action by the government, even if it’s at a local level, that militates against personal responsibility, as David claims?
So, even if the Torah does mandate universal health care as a form of Tzedaka, it should not be handled by the executive branch of the Federal government.
But what about a pluralistic, secular state in which the majority of citizens belong to traditions not recognizing Halakhah?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 3, 2009 at 7:24 pm


The social services were administerd by the local courts, not the local governments.
And, to the best of my knowledge, Noahides do not have an obligation to give charity, or supports social services. If a a society wants to do so, then I would imagien that they shoulkd do so in the most efficient manner possible, which means that it should not be administered by the Federal Government.



report abuse
 

BluejayNYC

posted September 4, 2009 at 12:23 pm


Excellent article. Trust the people. Liberty is the way!



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted September 4, 2009 at 4:16 pm


Your Name, courts are part of government–the judicial branch.
However, I want to delve into what is for me the most interesting aspect of this discussion. Consider the following quotes, emphasis added:
David: Jewish law for Jews is more liberal on abortion than Jewish law for Gentiles. We are more protective of the unborn non-Jewish life. In Torah, there are separate legal tracks — the Mosaic and the Noachide, for Jewish and Gentile communities respectively. Yet liberal Jews invariably cite Jewish abortion law, not the Gentile one which makes abortion a death penalty offense.
Your Name: And, to the best of my knowledge, Noahides do not have an obligation to give charity, or supports social services.
These are extremely interesting for what’s not said. David speaks of “Jewish law for Gentiles.” Jewish law for Gentiles?! Is that like Catholic law for Presbyterians? Or Hindu law for Muslims? Or New York law for residents of Washington State? WTF??!! Then he speaks of the “Gentile [law for abortion] which makes abortion a death penalty offense.” Really? Adjudicated and administered by whom? And Your Name says that “Noahides do not have an obligation to give charity, or supports social services.” Obligation to whom?
I think the heart of the issue is defining exactly what we mean by “Noachides” and “Jewish law for Genitles”. The sense in which I always understood the Noachide concept when I first learned about it years ago (at a time of religious seeking, I might add, when Judaism was one of the faiths I considered) was that it was a sort of baseline morality applicable to all. It was the basic standards requried to be decent, civilized human beings–end of story. However, the modern Noachide movement seems to be something more than that. Let me allow our friend LazarA from a previous thread to address us, with added emphasis:
2. While I doubt David would approve of such a bald statement, I have no problem asserting that Judaism certainly does teach that all other belief systems are fundamentally erroneous (even if, at times, they may carry elements of truth). Christianity, to the degree that it differs with Judaism (which is substantially), is false. Period. In reference to a discussion that took place on a previous thread, Judaism also teaches that it is is, absolutely, possible to objectively know the truth in these matters. I firmly believe that in any objective analysis, the self-contradictory nature of Christianity is very clear. The idea that matters of religion cannot be logically discussed and proven is, for obvious reasons, deeply attractive to those who adhere to religions that are logically incoherent. Judaism does not support this idea. On the contrary, Judaism teaches that the lack of a rational basis for one’s beliefs is a serious spiritual flaw.
3. As such, yes, part of the role of the Jewish people is – ultimately – to show the world the falsehood of their current beliefs and to bring them to the true service of God. Yes, this will involve the abandonment of Chrisitianity and all other such religions.
Now, I imagine that the vast majority of Jews, to the extent that they’re even aware of the Noachide laws, would interpret them in the broad “requirements to be a good person” sense I mentioned above. However, there are several groups, especially the ones associated with Chabad and the “High Council of B’nei Noah”, associated with the attemted revival of the Sanhedrin, which definitely seem to espouse something similar to what LazarA says, though they are very careful to avoid any such bluntness as he displays. I am on record as supporting the right of any religions, even freaky ones like Scientology, to proselytize as long as this is done honestly (which tends to knock out Scientology), non-aggressively, and non-coercively (thus I would oppose some missionizing by my own faith insofar as it fails to meet these criteria). However, there are two aspects of the Noachide movement and the concept of Jewish law for Gentiles (henceforth abbreviated JLFG) that bother me a bit.
To take the latter, JLFG, first, how is this envisioned as working, exactly? A lot of JLFG seems to connect to the concept of of the ger, which is not always clearly separate from that of a convert. However, the only context in which such laws could be enforced would be in a Jewish state administered under Halakhah. The last such state ceased to exist in 60 B.C. with the destruction of the Maccabean state (the same one that forcibly converted the Edomites to Judaism, I might point out); and since the Talmud had not been fully codified at that time, the exact laws then applicable are to say the least controverted. So what, in a 21st Century context, is the idea behind JLFG? If it’s just a hypothetical, then it’s fatuous, as fatuous as if I wrote a code of law for Sudan.
However, it may be that some who hold LazarA’s view that “[P]art of the role of the Jewish people is – ultimately – to show the world the falsehood of their current beliefs and to bring them to the true service of God,” would argue that the ultimate goal is that all Gentiles see the light and become Noachides, at which point the whole world will be subject to Jewish law in one of its two tracks. In such a case, I guess, Gentiles procuring abortions would be executed, unlike their Jewish neighbors! Anyway, I notice that those who seem to hold this belief are very rarely explicit about it. Of course, the reason is obvious.
Historically, any time that one religion claims the right to set laws or policy for those of other faiths, the end result is theocracy, tyranny, and oppression. Consider the sad history of my own religion, Christianity (in its Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant forms), towards Jews, Muslims, and others in regions under its control until very recently. Consider the status of dhimmis in Muslim countries where shari’ah is enforced. Not a pretty picture. Now let me be very, very clear–I am not, not, not spinning a theory of Jewish attempts to acheive world dominion; I am also not saying that some groups of Jews are seeking to make Gentiles some type of dhimmi. All I am saying is that some groups which aggressively promote Noachidism and JLFG seem to have a somewhat hidden agenda which probably does not square with the beliefs and sensibilities of the vast majority of Jews, let alone Gentiles.
Of course, they have the right to promote this, to seek to convert all humanity to Orthodox Judaism (through teshuvah, for Jews) or Noachidism (for Gentiles), just as Christians have the right to seek to convert all humanity to Christianity, and Muslims may seek to convert the world to Islam. The difference is that it is well-known that Christianity and Islam are missionary religions; and moreover, the mainstream denominations of Christianity have pretty much abandoned the aggressive, pushy forms of proselytism that have earned them a bad name in the past. In any case, promoters of Noachidism and JLFG have the responsibility of being absolutely clear and upfront about what they mean. I mean, as a Catholic, I think I’d be great if everyone converted; but I’m not out there trying to make it happen, nor do I think it will; and I’m inclined theologically to think that God has a purpose for other faiths which is His business, not mine. So I don’t mind dropping a few bucks in the tray on Mission Sunday, but I’m not trying to bring the world under Roman sway, either. If David, Your Name, and LazarA would be equally explicit about goals and ideals, it would clarify a lot of things here.
This is why things like this unnerve me a bit. Is the idea of this public promotion of Noachide principles a sort of kumbaya-let’s-all-agree-to-be-nice-people, or the subtle promotion of a particular religion? I mean, I don’t like it when my fellow Christians try to get the Ten Commandments in public buildings. I’m all for the Commandments, but the job of a pluralistic state is not to endorse any explicitly religious expression of principle. I mean, would a Jew, Muslim, or Hindu think that signing a declaration of the universal validity of the Beatitudes was a show of universal human stanards, or an endorsement of Christianity?
The final thing that I find objectionable regarding this strain of Noachidism is that it involves a two-tiered view of religion. Catholicism seeks to convert non-Catholics to the faith, e.g. Once you’re baptized and confirmed, you’re in. You’re as much Catholic as anyone, you could be as likely to become Pope as anyone (well, if you’re a man–but that’s another issue). Ditto Islam or any other missionary religion. With the B’nei Noach, though, it’s different. If you become a Ben or Bat Noach, you are in a sense converting into, to be blunt, a second-class version of a religion. Now I know the argument would be that it’s different, not inferior, and that Noachides have fewer obligations than Jews, etc. etc. However, it seems to me that this doesn’t wash. In a world in which all were Jews and Noachides, the relationship would be forever lop-sided. The law and regulations would ultimately come from the Jews, not from the Gentiles who were equally bound by them. And as David obligingly poionts out, in some cases the law would be harsher for Gentiles than for Jews. As a Gentile, I’m certainly not sure I see how this is desirable; but even if I were a Jew, I still wouldn’t get it. If I sought to have a friend become Catholic, I wouldn’t want him to be a lower-echelon Catholic who, say, couldn’t server altar or read at Mass or become a priest or some such–I’d want him to share in it and be just as much a Catholic as I am. If I were a Jew, I’d want a friend to become one, too, not to become a Noachide. Certainly if I had ever decided to convert myself, it would have been to Judaism, not to Noachidism.
Now please let me be clear. I am in no way, shape, or form attacking or disparaging Judaism or the Jewish people, for both of whom I have great admiration and respect. I also would strongly affirm the right of Judaism to seek converts either to Judaism or Noachidism. I just think that if things like this are going to come up here that we need to be very clear and explicit about exactly what we mean and what the implications are.



report abuse
 

David Kaplan

posted September 4, 2009 at 10:17 pm


Thank you. Caring for the poor does not mean supporting socialism or welfare.
What a relief not all Jews are lost.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted September 5, 2009 at 12:13 am


David Kaplan: Caring for the poor does not mean supporting socialism or welfare>
Nor, I would think, does it mean supporting capitalism or free markets and private charity. I would imagine it involves whatever approach or combination of approaches actually works best, don’t you think?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 5, 2009 at 10:59 pm


Turmarion wrote:”If you become a Ben or Bat Noach, you are in a sense converting into, to be blunt, a second-class version of a religion. Now I know the argument would be that it’s different, not inferior, and that Noachides have fewer obligations than Jews, etc. etc. However, it seems to me that this doesn’t wash.”
Should we listen to a ben Noach or should we listen to someone who isn’t a ben Noach to see how it “washes”?



report abuse
 

Charlie Hall

posted September 5, 2009 at 11:09 pm


Mr. Klinghoffer misrepresents the Orthodox Jewish position here. Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, the leading American Orthodox Jewish authority on Jewish law applied to medicine, stated three years ago this month that it is a Torah imperative for a community to provide health care to all. The sources are Devarim 22:2 (the requirement to heal included in the return of a lost object) and Vayikra 19:16 (not standing by the blood of your fellow).



report abuse
 

Mergatroid

posted September 6, 2009 at 1:28 am


“Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, the leading American Orthodox Jewish authority on Jewish law applied to medicine, stated three years ago this month that it is a Torah imperative for a community to provide health care to all.”
And he said that “a community” meant “the /American/ community” or just “the /Jewish/ community”?



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted September 6, 2009 at 1:56 pm


Charlie Hall, undoubtedly Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, the leading American Orthodox Jewish authority, also would state that it is a Torah imperative for our community to abstain from non-kosher food. Would this too apply to Americans as a whole — everyone, Jew and Gentile, must follow the laws of kashrut? Would it then misrepresent the Orthodox Jewish position, automatically identical with anything Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler says, to suggest otherwise?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 6, 2009 at 8:16 pm


Your Name: Should we listen to a ben Noach or should we listen to someone who isn’t a ben Noach to see how it “washes”?
Presumably a committed member of any religioius group thinks that the structure of his faith is OK, or he wouldn’t remain in it. Thus, I imagine a ben noach wouldn’t see his status as second-class or inferior, else he wouldn’t be a ben noach to begin with, preferring either to remain a generic Gentile or converting to Judaism altogether.
Certainly a person is allowed to have opinions about other faiths. In general, I think that commenting on what one sees to be pros or cons of a faith not his own is not appropriate in a public context, epsecially one in which members of the critiqued religion are part of the discussion. It would be somewhat like criticizing someone else’s family in front of them–rather tacky, at best, impertinent at worst.
I point out two things regarding my post, though. One, the statement about the status of Noachidism vis-à-vis Judaism and the desirability of conversion was my own personal view, which I wouldn’t expect a ben or bat noach to share, for obvious reasons.
Two, this is not the first time that David has brought up the idea of the Torah’s rules for Gentiles in the context of political and policy discussions. Now, if a Catholic tried to argue the applicability of Canon Law to non-Catholics, or a Muslim argued the application of shari’ah to non-Muslims, in the context of a pluralistic, secular state such at th USA, there would be immediate accusations of theocracy and violation of church-state separation.
I’m certainly not saying that David is a theocrat or against church-state separation, but I am saying that it is a little unclear what he and others here are talking about in discussing Jewish law for Gentiles. The only context in which this could conceivably have any real-world relevance would be in a Jewish state run fully by Halakhah, and no such state has existed for over two millennia (if even then). Thus, how is Jewish law for Gentiles to be umderstood, and how is it any more relevant in a secular democracy than Canon Law or shari’ah?
Of course, David says he’s interested in principles, not specific laws; but if the Torah has different tracks for Jews and Gentiles, then how is one supposed to know what principles to apply? I mean, in the abortion example; if it’s a capital offense for Gentiles, but not for Jews, then what principle are we supposed to draw from it? That it should be banned in all cases? Or in some? Or in none?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted September 6, 2009 at 8:18 pm


Whoops! Your Name at 8:16 is me! Sorry about that!



report abuse
 

jimmy37

posted September 8, 2009 at 11:25 am


I think your article pointed out that Yobama and company have a communist, ie. compulsary, vision for US. Forget personal responsibility. Liberal elitist know what is best for us and feel they don’t have to abide by their own decisions.



report abuse
 

DavidF

posted September 9, 2009 at 4:20 pm


There is no morality in the Democrat’s position. First, it is a pure deception which actually seeks to change the tax laws to extract more money in a bill that is supposed to address health care. With only 8-11 million people without health insurance–fixing the problem involves DIRECT and easy measures, not measures which inflict such destruction on the majority. If the a basic medical oath derived from the callous Greeks can say, first do no harm–surely a moral nation can uphold the same precept by stating first–do no harm. Harming the majority while exploiting the minority is the very definition of harm. Helping to provide money for those with insufficient means to pay could be accomplished easily through charity–costing our society nothing in the bargain. Instead, the threat is to ruin health care, spend trillions and fail to help people–please–Obama is so easy to turn down, we must do it swiftly and loudly.
Let’s help people who need help and let’s preserve what is working so well. Taking government out of the medical business completely would be a triumph for the PEOPLE.



report abuse
 

Pingback: Jews, Judaism, and Obamacare — Gather the Jews

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.