211 Responses to News & Links

1. Charlie Hall on March 11, 2012 at 11:26 pm

   “in the opinion of many, private charity is a more efficient and less corrupting way to do this”

   There were approximately 50 million uninsured Americans prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and an average cost of health insurance of approximately $5,000 per person. Do the arithmetic and you have $250 billion — except that the uninsured are disproportionately the uninsurable, so this is a lowball estimate.

   The grand total of all contributions to every United Way agency in the United States is a bit over $4 billion a year — and United Way is the largest non-religious charity in the US. In fact, the total of all charitable giving in the United States, including gifts to schools, hospitals, social service organizations, and religious organizations, is about $290 billion.

   Basically, the opinion that charity can provide for the uninsured is not based in reality.
2. Charlie Hall on March 12, 2012 at 12:11 am

   “Perhaps if you were to temporarily set aside some political preconceptions, and view the issue with some Da’as Torah, you would come up with new conclusions.”

   Rabbi. Dr. Moshe D. Tendler stated a few years ago that universal health insurance was a Torah imperative. Has he changed his position?
3. Nachum on March 12, 2012 at 4:48 am

   Avi, you wrote:

   “Most families were close knit, with closeish cousins marrying each other. And that would have been even more true with “royal” families. I doubt 80% are related to King David, unless you are willing to accept related by marriage alone. As in, The brother of someone who is married to a descendant of king David. That brother, is not “in the line” to King David, even if people would like him to be.”

   Marriages produce kids; other people marry those kids. This is especially true when people no longer remember their “special” ancestry. And even when they do: How many kohanim do you know who are married to bat kohanim? Probably the same percentage as in society in general.

   In any event, the math is simple: It doesn’t matter how many cousins marry each other; unless you’re dealing with a huge amount of cousin marriage (Arabs, Pakistanis, etc. for large populations; Chassidic rebbes and Samaritans for tiny ones; none of these representative of most Jews), over 2000-3000 years, everyone, especially in a relatively small population, will be descended from everyone.

   “The information might be hard to gather, but it is not impossible.”

   It probably is, short of a strand of DNA from a king of Yehuda. Which we may actually find one day…

   “Also, for Levites, we should be looking for 24 groups of families, not just 1 common ancestor. They were not as strict as Kohanim as to whom they could bring into their Tribe.”

   Which *women* they brought in. Male descent still governed, so Leviim should have common Y markers.
4. Nachum on March 12, 2012 at 4:50 am

   Charlie:

   1. The Constitution, especially the first and last of the Bill of Rights.

   2. The money.

   3. Our experience with both the incompetence and evil of large governments.
5. Canuck on March 12, 2012 at 9:41 am

   Charlie Hall – Perhaps charity won’t be able to fully cover society’s medical bills. But, what obligates me to pay for a stranger’s medical bills, or for her contraceptives or for her abortions?
6. aiwac on March 12, 2012 at 11:14 am

   Since we’re back on the Health Care debate, I thought I might share some links I recently came across:

   The myth of Medicare’s low administrative costs:

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/

   Why Switzerland has the best health care system:

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

   Expanding Medicaid reduces access to healthcare:

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/10/new-study-expanding-medicaid-reduces-access-to-health-care/
7. Canuck on March 12, 2012 at 12:24 pm

   aiwac – Thanks for the links. But, they seem to cover the economics of medicine, which is probably outside the scope of this blog. I was curious if anyone would respond to Charlie Hall’s earlier question, copied below?

   Charlie Hall> Rabbi. Dr. Moshe D. Tendler stated a few years ago that universal health insurance was a Torah imperative. Has he changed his position?
8. Canuck on March 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm

   Charlie Hall – My point about charity was that it could cover the medical bills of the indigent; I never suggested it could cover all of society’s medical costs, or even just replace Medicaid and Medicare in the US!
9. MiMedinat HaYam on March 12, 2012 at 4:01 pm

   charlie h — re: the mys case you cited. (i was wondering why that case is not part of the current (not necessarily torah musings, but general) debate).

   i cut and pasted an interesting part of the decision. the nys law gave an exemption to religious corp’s (as defined below) and required ins co’s to offer that coverage at the employee’s cost. but sec sebbelius did not offer that option, she just required “someone” unspecified to pay.

   2. BTW, my hypothetical “church of y” would probably qualify, but additional “discrimination” would be helpful.
   …………………….
   here a religious employer invokes the exemption, the insurer must offer coverage for contraception to individual employees, who may purchase it at their own expense “at the prevailing small group community rate” ( Insurance Law § 3221 [l] [16] [B] [1]; § 4303 [cc] [1] [A]). A “religious employer,” as defined in the statute, is:

   “an entity for which each of the following is true:

   “(a) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.

   “(b) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.

   “(c) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.

   “(d) The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in Section 6033 (a) (2) (A) i or iii, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.”
10. Larry Lennhoff on March 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    MiMedinat HaYam – the federal plan allows an exemption for religious organizations such as the Catholic church. What it does not allow an exemption for is Church affiliated organizations such as hospitals and charities. I doubt such organizations would qualify under a) and b) above, and if they did they wouldn’t qualify for Federal grant money. Neither lawyers nor theologians would have to strain very much to claim a and b are true for the sake of their exemption, but false for the sake of their funding, but I think it wouldn’t be a correct decision.
11. MiMedinat hayam on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    larry l — i pointed out the intersting provision of nys law, (per the decision excerpt) which requires -certain- employers to offer a conforming plan at marginal cost to the employee. unlike sec sebellius’s propsal (obviously baesd on this excerpt) requiring (unnamed) to pay, but definitely not the employee (which nys does.)

    the “church of y” inculcates its religious values ( = gym and pool)
    and
    the “church of y” primarly employs those who share gym and swim values.

    a) and b) are met.