Whole Foods, Half Heart

A couple of weeks ago the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, published an anti-health care reform op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This led to an outcry from the crunchy-and-green precincts of the left, who make up a large portion of the clientele of Whole Foods. (Though not me, as there isn't one in Wichita and I always found it too expensive anyway.) There has even been talk of a boycott, because -the thinking goes - nothing will make Mackey realize that he can't take the sensibilities of his customer base for granted more than a kick in the wallet.

Well, here's Michael Pollan's response. It's a short piece so you can read it all but the gist of it is that Whole Foods forms a base of a more humane and sustainable food system, which is not only necessary now but will be seen to be even more necessary by health insurance companies should the health care system be reformed so as to reward them for the wellness of their clients rather than their illness. Potent quote:

When health insurers realize they will make thousands more in profits for every case of type II diabetes they can prevent, they will develop a strong interest in things like corn subsidies, local food systems, farmer’s markets, school lunch, public health campaigns about soda, etc. So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food...

Pollan also points out that we don't often litmus-test the politics of CEOs of the companies we do business with, and a good thing too, because we would likely find them unpalatable. So to speak.

Parshat Ki Tetzei

This week’s parshah includes the instruction on what to do if you see a mother bird and her young, and you want to take the young:

If, along the road, you chance upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs, do not take the other together with her young. Let the mother go, and only take the young, in order that you may fare well and have a long life.

This is one of the few mitzvot where the reward is specifically given as long life, and in fact there’s a long narrative in the Talmud about the prototypical heretic, Elisha ben Abuya, who went over to the “other side” because he saw a boy climb up to a nest, chase the mother away, and then fall off the ladder to his death, in contravention of the promise.

Maimonides claims that the mother is chased away to spare her the pain of seeing her offspring taken away, but other commentators disagree, saying either a) that she would feel just as much pain to come back to a nest and find her offspring had been taken or b) we don’t take such precautions with other animals, such as cattle, so why should we do so here?

A possible answer is found by where this section is placed. Just a few pesukim (verses) earlier, we are instructed that if we are to find something that belongs to someone else, we are to make every effort to find the owner. If you come across an animal fallen on the road, you are to help the owner raise it.

Like all mitzvot, these instructions are not given because God needs us to behave in a certain way, or for that matter because it’s good for the bird. Rather, these instructions are given because it is good for us to learn to behave in compassionate ways. “Doing the right thing” helps improve our character, makes us better people, prepares us for circumstances where doing the right thing might not just be peculiar, but really inconvenient or even dangerous. The acts themselves are enlivening, one might say enlightening, and we are to do them not for their effect on others but for their positive effect on us.

A good thing to keep in mind, perhaps, as we approach the Days of Awe. Shabbat shalom.

What do we want? When do we want it?

From Stephanie McMillan, excellent cartoonist:

(click here to view)

Stephanie McMillan Minimum Security Aug 24, 2009 EditorialCartoonists.com

Parshat Shoftim

This week’s parshah deals extensively with the procedures surrounding judging and the administration of the law. It includes the famous line, “Justice, justice you shall pursue!” In honor of this parshah, and in honor of the Wichita chapter of Hadassah (which cosponsored the Health Care Panel last week) I want to share with you this story, from The Five Books of Miriam by Ellen Frankel (HarperSanFranciso, 1996). It may also be a commentary on the issue of health care reform, see if you agree:

Once, Alexander came to a faraway land ruled only by women. He wanted to conquer them, but they mocked him: “If you defeat us, what dishonor! And if we defeat you, what shame!” So he made peace with them.

Then he said, “Show me your justice.”

So they brought him to the court, where one of the women sat in judgment. Two men came before her, each accusing the other of foul play.

“I bought land from this man,” said the first, “and I found a treasure buried in my field, which I had not agreed to buy. But when I ordered the seller to take the treasure back, he refused!” Said the other, “When I sold my land to this man, I sold him what was above and what was below as well. If I take back the treasure, I will be a thief!”

The judge asked the two man if they had children of marriageable age. They told her that one of them had a daughter and the other, a son. “I order them to marry each other,” ruled the judge, “and to share the treasure between them.”

When he heard the judge’s ruling, Alexander laughed. “In my kingdom,” he said, “I would have ordered both men killed, and I would have kept the treasure for myself!”

The women asked him, “Do you have goats, sheep and cows in your country?”

“Of course,” answered Alexander.

“Then it is for their sake that the sun shines and the land yields its bounty, for the people there clearly do not deserve such a blessing.”

And when Alexander departed from that land, he left behind an inscription on the gates which read, “A fool was I until I came here to learn wisdom from the women.”

Shabbat shalom.

This week's links

Jerusalem Post: Seriously disgusting story of the week: In the aftermath of an “expression of regret” by the Swedish Ambassador in Tel Aviv, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has rejected Israeli calls for official condemnation of a Swedish newspaper article claiming the IDF killed Palestinians in order to harvest their organs, saying freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy.

JTA: Use of language and imagery comparing President Obama’s policies to Hitler’s have been making the rounds, causing condemnation of the caustic “debating tactics,” though experts seem to doubt that it represents an outbreak of real anti-Semitism.

JTA: President Obama participated in a call with over 1,000 rabbis from all denominations this week in order to build support for his efforts to reform the nation’s health care system.

Forest for the Trees

I've been thinking quite a bit about this week about the public option, due mostly to the uproar on the left in response to Sec. Sebelius' seeming to send up a trial balloon about compromising it away on the Sunday talk shows last week.

There are two separate-but-related issues that need to be dealt with in any potential healthcare reform: first, universal access (which includes the end of pre-existing conditions and, more importantly, an end to cutting people off when they get sick) and second, the reining in of costs - premiums, co-pays, out of pocket expenses, insurance industry profits. The public option is really meant to address the second. One question that comes up is, Is it really healthcare reform without the public option? Co-ops don't seem to fulfill the same purpose in terms of providing an alternative to a profit-based insurance model.

But this is only addressing the second question, and doesn't address the universal access aspect at all. Clearly it would be possible to have a bill that includes universal access but not the public option. Given where we are right now, is it really possible to say that this would not be reform?

My thinking was clarified by this piece by Jonathan Alter in this week's Newsweek. He pointed out that this is "the civil rights issue of our time," and claims that, as important as the public option is, the moral issue really revolves around universal access:

But how about if you or someone you know loses a job and the them becomes "us"? The recession, which is thought to be harming the cause of reform, could be aiding it if the story were told with the proper sense of drama and fright. Since all versions of the pending bill ban discrimination by insurance companies against people with preexisting conditions, that provision isn't controversial. Which means it gets little attention. Which means that the deep moral wrong that passage of this bill would remedy is somehow missing from the debate.

He also points out that when Social Security was first passed in 1935, it covered

only about half the adult population. It excluded farmhands, domestics, employees of small businesses, and most blacks. That was because FDR needed the votes of Southern Democrats, the Blue Dogs of their day.

It was expanded later, as were various Civil Rights Acts and (in our own era) Medicare, which was expanded under Bush II to include a prescription drug benefit.

In other words, the first step is the hardest. It is the acceptance of, and legislation of, healthcare as a right for all Americans that is the essential element here. If we get that, anything else can be fixed later. If we don't get that, then we don't have anything - and people, real people, will suffer and die. This is why, as important as the public option is, progressives must not sink the legislation if it cannot pass in the Senate. Universal access is the moral responsibility here, and forgetting that is losing the forest for the trees.

Coverage of the Healthcare Reform Panel

Wichita Eagle. They carried one of my jokes, I don't know why.

KWCH This was the best of the TV news coverage. KSN claimed the panel was sponsored by Rep. Tiahrt, despite the fact that all the publicity and the words spoken in the forum itself made clear that it was sponsored by MKJF and Hadassah. Elementary journalism anyone? KAKE was better, but not by much, the video focusing on those few people who spoke out in the audience and journalist claiming that the "consensus in the room" was that the government should have no role in healthcare, which I take to mean that the journalist wasn't in the room.

Carolyn Fugit tweeted the whole thing, you can find it here (scroll down to yesterday, she's an active tweeter), and Nicki Scheid video'd the whole presentation, the first installment is here and then you can find the rest of if by clicking "More video by Nicki."

Health care sermonette

Here are the opening remarks I made at the health care reform panel held yesterday and hosted by the MKJF and the local chapter of Hadassah:

The Jewish community in Wichita is sponsoring this event because health care reform is considered a major legislative priority by virtually all of the major national Jewish organizations. The United Jewish Communities/Jewish Federations of North America, the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, Hadassah and the National Council of Jewish Women, the Conservative and Reform movements and their rabbinical associations, and others have all endorsed and are actively advocating for meaningful healthcare reform in the current legislative session.

Although this should not at this point be considered an endorsement of any particular legislation, a flyer addressing what we hope to see from this effort can be found on the table coming into the room, and I think much of it will come up in the discussion today.

The Jewish community has taken this stand because Jewish tradition and the values we derive from it tell us very clearly that this is a moral issue. Now I know there are people who believe it immoral to take money from one person to help another, but I have to say that this attitude does not gibe with my understanding of Jewish teachings or indeed with any religiously based moral code with which I am familiar. In fact, the Hebrew scriptures, and the Christian scriptures that claim them as their source, hold precisely the opposite to be true – that it is the responsibility of the community to support those in need.

In Leviticus it is written, “You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor,” and the obligation to save a life is so fundamental as to supersede nearly every other law. It is for this reason that the great sage Maimonides listed health care first on his list of the ten most important communal services that a city has to offer to its residents. The rabbinic principles enunciated in the Talmud insist that while physicians are not to be expected to perform their work for free, no person is to be denied medical care based on their ability to pay: it the doctor’s responsibility to lower their price for a person in need, and where that is not sufficient, it is a societal responsibility to subsidize healthcare for people in need. (Yorah Deah 249) Yes, it really says that. And this is not solely an individual responsibility, but a collective one.

There’s another text I want to bring that addresses this question of whether it is right to ask one person to pay for the wellbeing of another. In Deuteronomy we are warned that when things are going well for us, when we have food to eat and houses over our heads, vineyards and silver and gold, we should take care lest we say to ourselves, “’My own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me.’” Remember that it is God who gives you the power to get wealth.”

I guarantee you that every person in this room, whether we are aware of it or not, knows someone who is unable to afford health insurance, or has found out to their shock and dismay that the insurance they have won’t cover them when they got sick, or who has had to decide whether to take the medicine or eat dinner, or is facing a bankruptcy due to medical costs. To me it is clear that the appropriate moral response to this is not, “I got mine, Jack,” but rather is, “There but for the grace of God, go I.”

Parshat Re'eh

This week’s parshah, Re’eh, contains a very important tzedakah text:

There shall be no needy among you, because your God will bless you in the land that God is giving you… If, however, there is a needy person among you… do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kinsman. Rather, you must open you hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs. … For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land. (Deut. 15:4, 7-8, 11)

The text seems to contradict itself: “There won’t be any needy among you, but if by some chance there happen to be some needy among you, you should take care of them, and oh by the way, there will always be needy among you.” It’s proposing an optimum vision – no needy among you – but then it’s recognizing that the conditions that would make that heaven-on-earth possible are not likely to be fulfilled. So we are to open our hands.

These verses, and others like them, form the cornerstone of Jewish law regarding alleviation of poverty. We are required (not advised, but required) to feed, clothe and house the poor - and, oh by the way, provide them with subsidies if they can’t afford health care (and yes, that’s in Jewish Law: Yorah Deah 249).

Rashi points out that the reward for observance of a commandment like this one is God’s blessing, in such abundance that poverty would no longer exist. In other words, read the paragraph backward: There will always be poor and needy kinsman, so you should open your hand, and if you do that, God’s abundance will be upon you, such that there will be no poor and needy among you.

Someone like Rashi would see this as God deciding to lay more blessings on us as a reward for us doing the commandments, but I prefer to look at it as a “natural consequence,” or in this case, a natural reward: if we open our hand to the needy among us - without reservation, without overmuch worry about self-preservation, and without being judgmental about who does or does not “deserve” our largesse – then the blessings that God gives us will be shared in such a way that there will “be no needy among” us. It’s up to us to make it that way. I don’t know about you, but to me that seems like something to strive for.

Shabbat shalom.

Parshat Eikev

Here’s a line from this week’s parshah, Eikev:

And now, O Israel, what does God demand of you? Only this: to revere your God, to walk only in God’s paths, to love God, and to serve your God with all your heart and soul, and keeping God’s commandments and laws, which I enjoin upon you today, for your own good. (Deut. 10:12-13)

This seems pretty darn demanding. Not only are we to do everything God tells us to do, but we’re supposed to love God while we’re doing it! How in the world are we supposed to do all this?

This reminds me of the discussion in Talmud tractate Makkot:

R. Simlai when preaching said: Six hundred and thirteen precepts were communicated to Moses…

Isaiah came and reduced them to six [principles], as it is written, [i] the one that walks righteously, and [ii] speaks uprightly, [iii] who despises the gain of oppression, [iv] that shakes his hands from holding bribes, [v] that stops his ears from hearing of blood, [vi] and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil; he shall dwell on high…

Micah came and reduced them to three [principles], as it is written, It has been told thee, O human, what is good, and what God does require of you: [i] only to do justly, and [ii] to love mercy and [iii] to walk humbly before your God.

Again came Isaiah and reduced them to two [principles], as it is said, Thus say God, [i] Keep justice and [ii] do righteousness. Amos came and reduced them to one [principle], as it is said, For thus says God unto the house of Israel, Seek Me and live.

And there’s our answer. To treat the Other well, to be honest in our dealings, to pursue justice and a good heart, to live up to our commitments, to be humble about our accomplishments – this is the way to a good life. So simple a task, yet difficult to accomplish! Yet this is what it means to “seek God.” The reward, Amos tells us, is life – life as it is best lived, life as it is meant to be lived.

Shabbat shalom.

Nat'ral born citizen

It's finally time for the truth to come out:



Click here, and you too can make yourself ineligible for the presidency.