Thursday, August 16, 2012

Chodesh l'Shana Overview/Review

In this week's parasha (15:14) we find the mitzvah of ha'anaka to a freed eved ivri. This mitza has served over the centuries as the basis for the minhag to grant severance pay to terminated workers. The word basis is very important to understand, as the basis for a minhag does not necessarily yield the parameters of the minhag that ultimately evolves from its basis. The minhag, once established, takes on a life of its own, is its own independent organism, and develops and evolves on its own.

The case of severance pay is a classic case in point. There is no point in attempting to correlate the parameters of this minhag with the parameters of the mitzvah of  ha'anaka.

But there is very much a point in attempting to ascertain the parameters of the minhag of severance pay in and of themselves.

Particularly in our day and age, when the issue of severance pay is often a major issue in the worlds of chinuch, rabbonus and other klei kodesh positions - often culminating in Dinei Torah, which in and of themselves are often adjudicated by unscrupulous zavla courts.

The publication of the sefer - kettan ha'kamus ach rav ha'eichus - "Chodesh L'Shana"  is a very positive development. 

The author is Rabbi Naftali Zvi Frankel. His address and phone number are in the book, and he has email access as well. As he has not explicitly permitted me to publicize his email address, you can write to me and I will forward your comments to him.

 It records the written opinions of many of the greatest yoshveial m'din in North America, Eretz Yisroel and Europe that the normative operative minhag is that formulated by the מרא דארעא of North America, Rav Moshe zt"l, of severance pay of a month of salary per year of employment.

I have a negi'a of family affinity, but I like best the way in which my uncle, R'  Dovid Schochet shilta, an אב"ד in Toronto expresses the minhag:

1. Klei kodesh is defined as a role that only a Jew can fill - viz., a Mashgi'ach, a Mechanech, a Shamash in a shul, etc. For all these positions, severance pay is chodesh l'shana.

2. For any position that a non-Jew can also fill, the severance pay is in accordance with the general minhag ha'medinah of "shavu'a l'shana" - viz., a week of salary per year of employment. [He explains that it has to be this way, since otherwise no Jewish employer would hire a Jew for a position for which he could hire a non-Jew.]

3. The severance is only due if the employer terminates the employee, and vice versa.

4. The severance is only due if the position is still extant. [He does not mean that by eliminating a position the employer exempts himself from chodesh l'shana. So long as there is still demand or a necessity for the position, its "official" elimination does not exempt the employer from his obligation.]

5. An institution that has shut down and is no longer functioning is exempt from the obligation.

6. During the first two years in a position, a  Mechanech is in a probationary status, and has no right to severance. However, if he continues in the position beyond the first two years, in the event of his eventual termination, the first two years are included in the calculation of chodesh l'shana.

[He continues on to give some practical advice on arrangements.]


To conclude, there are nevertheless mosdos and administrators who assert that they are not subject to the minhag of chodesh l'shana. Moreover, I have recently heard that some mosdos are now writing into their contracts that they do not abide by the minhag of chodesh l'shana. When I hear of such happening, I am often led to wonder whether these ostensible leaders are actually מאמינים שיש דין ויש דיין.

48 comments:

  1. This mingag evolved from very paternalistic society in Europe, where in many postions employee could not leave his employer without permission , even he was personaly free. On other hand, employment "at will" is much modern relation between both sides, even it also mentioned in gemora.
    I belive "work at will" have make much economic sense to employee and employer.
    However, to be fair to teachers and to student and their parents - we should give teacher a choice : to have more salary right now or deduct hodesh/beshana and deposit to special account. This way it will be transperent to teaCher and organisation where the money is coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The comment above is utterly incorrect in its understanding of the character of a minhag in halacha.

    The last paragraph sounds reasonable, but it too is incorrect. ודוק.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In Israel, in most positions, the employer really does take an amount equal to 8.333% of your salary and puts it into a keren pitzuyim (a fund that is paid to you upon termination of employment). This comes out to exactly chodesh leshanah in the end (because it is exactly 1/12 of your salary).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I object to R'YGB's making it seem as if the Torah favors being fair and decent towards those who are no longer of use to us.

    I thought this was an Orthodox Blog!

    Next thing you know, he'll be saying that according to the Torah, a chessedik society would make sure that everyone has access to healthcare!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, Dovid Shlomo, you have discovered my secret! את חטאי אני מזכיר היום. You are forcing me out of the closet. I confess to believe that access to healthcare is a basic human right. Moreover, I am an adherent of the apostasy that - while not going far enough towards the ultimate Tikkun Olam of universal, single payer healthcare - Obamacare is a good thing as a first step in the right direction

    Battening down the hatches and ducking down for cover...

    ReplyDelete
  6. "You are forcing me out of the closet. I confess to believe that access to healthcare is a basic human right."

    What does your support of socialized medicine have to do with the obligation to pay ha'anaka when it is the minhag hamedina?

    I ask because it seems to be that those who attempt to be mivatel the psak of the gedolei hador and minhag, say, "it's not a chiyuv, just a maysah chesed."

    Do you agree that it's important not to compare the two?

    ReplyDelete
  7. They are not directly related, and I agree that on technical grounds they are not comparable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Advocating for a chessedik society is an obligation, not a chessed.

    Advocating for universal Health Care is a basic example of that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rabbi Bechofer and Dovid Shlomo,

    Do you think there is a halachic obligation to change the healthcare system if it would mean more people having basic coverage, but everyone losing the level of care and expertise available to them now, when it is not socialized? In other words, would you say that an 80 year old indivdual who under non-socialized medicine would be treated and cured, should die since when everyone is covered with socialized medicine, the needed operation or diagnostic test will not be available in time for treatment? This is the unfourtunate reality in Countries that have socialized medicine- elderly people don't get close to the same level of care as those in America until now under non-socialized medicine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To Anon:
    My main point was that it is an obligation to strive for a chessedik society, not a lifnim m'shuras hadin "chessed."

    You and I might disagree as to what price society must pay, but that price is made higher once one recognizes that they are dealing with an obligation rather than merely a nice thing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dovid Shlomo: "...You and I might disagree as to what price society must pay..."

    And what price do you think society must pay? Do you think potential elderly patients, who would live to a riper old age under non-socialized medicine, should face death under socialized medicine, since they won't receive the care they need fast enough [although many more people overall will have basic coverage]?

    Rabbi Bechoffer, what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  12. In addition, why wouldn't an action of changing the staus quo which would give many more coverage but also cause the deaths of patients who would have otherwise lived under the current healthcare system constitute "Mai Chazis..."? How could you say, "I suuport changing the system so that some people will die so many more will have coverage?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think that there is a halachic obligation to change the healthcare system if it means more people having basic coverage, even at the cost of others losing the level of care and expertise available to them now, when it is not socialized? In other words, I would say that an 80 year old individual who under non-socialized medicine would be treated and perhaps cured, may have to die in the unlikely event that because everyone is covered with socialized medicine, the needed operation or diagnostic test will not be available in time for treatment? This is my belief notwithstanding the ostensible "unfortunate realities" in countries that have socialized medicine - viz., that allegedly, elderly people don't get close to the same level of care as those in America until now under non-socialized medicine.

    The action of changing the staus quo which would give many more coverage but also cause the deaths of patients who would have otherwise lived under the current healthcare system does not constitute "Mai Chazis..." I therefore suuport changing the system' notwithstanding the assertion that so that some people will die so many more will have coverage?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rabbi Bechhofer,

    I suppose part of my question was: Do you view changing the status quo, in the same light as in theory starting a system in a new Country? In other words, it is one thing to say that when the United States was initally establishing a Health Care system, it should have been modeled in a way that offers coverage for everyone. However, it is something else completely to say that a Country should change it's currently established system even if it means sentencing an entire segment of the population to death. Assuming you had a beloved relative who r"l had a condition that under the current health care system would be treated and cured- and would be able to enjoy life for decades to come, would you really be ready to say "you and those in your condition who currently are being treated and are brimming with hope of future years of happiness and joy, must die, since we must have the others who are uninsured in mind. Do you really believe in kllling an entire segement of the elderly population for what you consider "a greater good" of offering health coverage to those who are currently uninsured?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dovid Shlomo,

    I think it is shocking and very ironic that you think establishing a healthcare system which reduces and in some cases eliminates care given to senior citizens, the disabled, and infants with birth defects- an obligation or let alone a chessed. If socialized medicine gave everyone the equal high level of care, then you would perhaps have an argument- but that is not the reality that exists.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon:
    The question you asked has been addressed by poskim, including Rav Elyashiv.

    For instance, Kupat Cholim cannot possibly pay for every cancer drug, especially those that are considered experimental and cost $7,000 per month (or more) and show very little evidence of being able to significantly extend the life of certain patients.

    The budgetary question always is whether to remove certain drugs and treatments so as to better be able to serve the basic needs of braoder population.

    In EY, under a Charedi health minister, they cut certain cancer drugs from the "basket" in order to use the savings to begin offering Dental care, which had never been covered before.

    There you have an example where teh benefit was not even life-saving.

    What YGB and myself are talking about in teh US is not dental care, but a system that very much would be life saving to the many.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dovid Shlomo,

    I'm not sure why you feel the need to avoid answering the question directly: Do you really believe that it's a mitzvah to eliminate health care given to currently insurance paying senior citizens, disabled, and infants with birth defects- and to let them die- in order to offer free general coverage to those who do not pay for insurance policies? Do you really think it is a mitzvah to let your elders [and sickly brothers and sisters] die, while offering care to the strong and youthful?

    Please answer directly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And please present your claimed tshuvos that state that it is a mitzvah to eliminate a healthcare system which offers optimum care to ALL WHO PAY for an insurance policy, and to replace it with a healthcare system which reduces and in some cases eliminates care given to senior citizens, the disabled, and infants with birth defects.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon:
    I apologize for answering according to reality, which your question has nothing to do with.

    However, as you prefer that I answer your question, I do not favor killing anyone in order to save others, nor does halacha sanction this.

    I also do not believe that the scenario you envision will be the outcome of universal access to halthcare.

    More importantly, I do not believe that denying coverage for "heroic" and often pointless interventions constitutes murder and believe it is halachically justifiable for a society to choose to use those resources elsewhere, as was done in EY so as to provide dental care and certainly in the US so as to provide medial access to those who previously had been effectively shut out of it.

    As for your request for teshuvos, I suggest you contact the Charedi Health Mimister who advocated removal of coverage for certain drugs in order to fund dental care.

    I have no idea if a formal teshuva was written, but am fully confident that the charedi minister sought Rabbinnic approval for a proposal that was impacted the charedi world and was well-known.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dovid Shlomo,

    1) You wrote:

    "...The question you asked has been addressed by poskim, including Rav Elyashiv..."

    Then in response to my request for proof of such responsa you wrote:

    ...As for your request for teshuvos, I suggest you contact the Charedi Health Mimister who advocated removal of coverage for certain drugs in order to fund dental care. I have no idea if a formal teshuva was written..."

    2) Rabbi Bechhofer [who you claimed to agree with; as when you wrote: "...what YGB and myself are talking about..."] wrote:

    "...I therefore suuport changing the system' notwithstanding the assertion that so that some people will die so many more will have coverage..."

    Then you wrote the following, which I suppose means you don't agree with R' Bechhofer after all:

    "...I do not favor killing anyone in order to save others, nor does halacha sanction this..."

    3) You wrote:

    "...I also do not believe that the scenario you envision will be the outcome of universal access to halthcare..."

    Perhaps you should research the topic before stating opinions on such a life altering subject for many human lives.

    If your a citizen of the UK [Under Socialized Medicine]:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yK7gbr7D

    "...A UK doctor estimates that 130,000 elderly are put on a "death pathway" under socialized medical care to spare the medical system inconvenience. According to the UK Daily Mail:
    "NHS (National Health Service) doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday. Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial 'death pathway' into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly..."

    If you’re a citizen of Canada [under Socialized Medicine]:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

    "...You don’t really have a right to any particular health care service. You don’t have a right to heart surgery. You don’t even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you’re the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery,
    you’re not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other
    people can and do get in ahead
    of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump
    the queue, because Americans can do
    something that Canadians cannot—Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets.
    The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there. Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get
    care first to people who need it first..."

    ReplyDelete
  21. 4) You wrote:

    "...More importantly, I do not believe that denying coverage for "heroic" and often pointless interventions constitutes murder and believe it is halachically justifiable for a society to choose to use those resources elsewhere..."


    It's really amazing that you actually wrote those words.


    "ABC’s Stossel Slams Socialized Medicine"

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/08/01/abc-s-stossel-slams-socialized-medicine-finds-obama-expressed-interes

    "STOSSEL: Many pundits and economists agree, saying Obama’s plan will build "a bridge to government-run health care."

    PIPES: -and we’re all going to face long waiting lists and have lack of access to the latest care.

    DOCTOR DAVID GRATZER, AUTHOR OF THE CURE: People line up for care, some of them die, that’s what happens.

    STOSSEL: Canadian Doctor David Gratzer thought Canada’s government health care was great until he started treating patients.

    GRATZER; The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house-

    STOSSEL: People wait in line?

    GRATZER: You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem. You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem. Free as the air. You just got to wait six months.

    STOSSEL: But Canadian doctors told us their system is cracking. This man had a heart attack.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE DOCTOR: What did they tell you about when an ICU bed might become available?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE PATIENT: They’re waiting for the chance that somebody may be transferred so that I can get that spot.

    STOSSEL: In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but in Canada, if you’re sick enough to be admitted, you wait an average 23 hours.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE DOCTOR: You can’t send these patients to other hospitals that have capacity because there is no other hospital in the area that has capacity.

    STOSSEL: There was no bed for this little girl, and she had no pediatrician that her parents could take her to to monitor her seizures. In fact, 1.7 million Canadians say they can’t get a family doctor. Some towns, like this one outside Toronto, hold a lottery. Once a month, the town clerk gets this box out of the closet. Inside are names of everyone who wants a family doctor. She pulls out four slips and then calls the lucky winners.

    UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN ON PHONE: I just wanted to let you know that your name has been drawn for Dr. Keel’s patient list. Oh, you’re quite welcome.

    STOSSEL: Others in town must wait. Businessman Rick Baker makes money from Canadian rationing. People stuck on waiting lists like Shirley Healy pay him to get them to America for treatment. Healy had a blocked artery that kept her from digesting her food.

    ReplyDelete
  22. RICK BAKER, CANADIAN BUSINESSMAN: She was starving to death. She’d lost 50 pounds.

    STOSSEL: She hired Rick to help her get to this hospital in Washington state where she saw an American doctor.

    HEALY: The doctor said that I would have had only a very few weeks to live.

    STOSSEL: Yet the Canadian government calls her surgery elective.

    HEALY: The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live.

    STOSSEL: When this Canadian woman was about to give birth to quadruplets, she was told, "Sorry, all the neonatal units are too crowded." She had to fly to Montana.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE ANCHOR: Actress Natasha Richardson is said to be in critical condition-

    STOSSEL: After Natasha Richardson fell while skiing in Montreal, she needed a high-tech trauma center but there wasn’t one within hundreds of miles. And there were no med evac helicopters to take her to one.

    STOSSEL: So, yes, our profit-driven system is expensive and sometimes wasteful. But it’s that pursuit of profit that’s given us inventions that save lives.

    GRATZER: This is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment.

    STOSSEL: Thousands come here from countries with government health care. When this Spanish tenor got cancer, he came to America. So did this sheikh from the United Arab Emirates, Italy’s prime minister, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

    GRATER: Literally, we’re surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You got to pay a price for that type of advancement.

    STOSSEL: Breakthroughs like birth control pills and robotic limbs wouldn’t have happened without the possibility of big profit, says Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute.

    GRACE MARIE TURNER, GALEN INSTITUTE: I want companies to come up with cures for Parkinson’s, cures for cancer, cures for Alzheimer’s. And unless there is a reward for them to do that, we’re not going to have those new medicines.

    STOSSEL: Well, government has researchers. We have the NIH.

    TURNER: Government is responsible for four percent of the drugs on the market today.

    STOSSEL: She’s right. You want innovation and fast treatment? That often comes from people pursuing profit. And you see that in Canada because, even here, there is one area where they do offer easy access to cutting edge technology-

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: -CT Scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laporoscopy-

    STOSSEL: -available all the time.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: -24 hours, seven days a week-

    STOSSEL: Patients rarely wait.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: If I see a patient that’s torn a crusciate ligament in that patient’s knee, we can generally have that patient scheduled within probably a week.

    STOSSEL: But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Want a CT Scan in Canada? Private vet clinics say they can get a dog in the next day. For people, the waiting list is a month."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Socialized Medicine in Canada
    Free Care Leaves Doctor Shortages and Waiting Lists

    http://voices.yahoo.com/socialized-medicine-canada-2885780.html

    Nobody wants their neighbors to go without health care, and socialized medicine promises health care for all, regardless of financial situation. Unfortunately, socialized medicine has many problems. Previously, I have written about health care in Europe. America's neighbor to the north, Canada, also has problems with its health care system. Canada often has doctor shortages and waiting lists that cause wealthier patients to travel to the United States for care. The following are some examples of why Canada's health care system is lacking.
    Waiting Times for Treatment

    Canadians wait an average of 18.3 weeks to receive the surgery that they need, according to the CBC News. For some treatments, the wait is considerably longer. Patients needing orthopedic surgery might have to wait more than 38 weeks, and patients needing neurosurgery might have to wait 27 weeks. Many cardiac arrests in Canada could be prevented by using an implantable defibrillator, but the wait time is so long, sometimes doctors don't even bother to refer their patients to get one. Children routinely wait months to more than a year for "elective" surgeries like having their tonsils taken out, having tubes put in their ears to prevent ear infections, saving their sight by surgically realigning their eyes, or removing benign tumors from their faces.

    PET Scans Not Covered for Cancer Patients

    Ontario routinely doesn't cover PET scans for cancer patients. PET scans are more accurate than CT scans, but it currently is available only in clinical trials. Some patients go to a private clinic and pay out of pocket. They can usually be seen within a week. The median wait time for a CT scan, which is covered, is nearly five weeks.

    Doctor Shortage Results in Physician Turning Away Patient for Being Over 55

    Dr. Derek Nesdoly was advertising for new patients, but when Edith Paulus, age 59, called to ask about being a patient, she was turned away because she was older than 55. There are not enough doctors in Canada to treat everyone that needs to be treated. Nearly 1.5 million Canadians cannot find a family physician. Canada needs about 15,000 more doctors, yet there aren't even that many students in medical schools today.

    Canadians Have a Higher Risk of Death After Heart Attack

    In a study published in the medical journal Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association, Canadians were discovered to have a higher rate of death after a heart attack than U.S. citizens. In the United States, patients have a death rate of 19.6% after suffering from a heart attack due to a completely blocked coronary artery; in Canada, the rate was 21.4%. Americans are more likely to receive more aggressive treatment like angioplasty or bypass surgery, while Canadians are usually just given medication.

    Health care in the United States is not perfect. The cost is high, and some people fall through the cracks. The answer is not socialized medicine. In Canada, socialized medicine has led to doctor shortages, long wait times, and necessary care that is not covered.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Socialized Medicine in Canada
    Free Care Leaves Doctor Shortages and Waiting Lists

    http://voices.yahoo.com/socialized-medicine-canada-2885780.html

    Nobody wants their neighbors to go without health care, and socialized medicine promises health care for all, regardless of financial situation. Unfortunately, socialized medicine has many problems. Previously, I have written about health care in Europe. America's neighbor to the north, Canada, also has problems with its health care system. Canada often has doctor shortages and waiting lists that cause wealthier patients to travel to the United States for care. The following are some examples of why Canada's health care system is lacking.
    Waiting Times for Treatment

    Canadians wait an average of 18.3 weeks to receive the surgery that they need, according to the CBC News. For some treatments, the wait is considerably longer. Patients needing orthopedic surgery might have to wait more than 38 weeks, and patients needing neurosurgery might have to wait 27 weeks. Many cardiac arrests in Canada could be prevented by using an implantable defibrillator, but the wait time is so long, sometimes doctors don't even bother to refer their patients to get one. Children routinely wait months to more than a year for "elective" surgeries like having their tonsils taken out, having tubes put in their ears to prevent ear infections, saving their sight by surgically realigning their eyes, or removing benign tumors from their faces.

    PET Scans Not Covered for Cancer Patients

    Ontario routinely doesn't cover PET scans for cancer patients. PET scans are more accurate than CT scans, but it currently is available only in clinical trials. Some patients go to a private clinic and pay out of pocket. They can usually be seen within a week. The median wait time for a CT scan, which is covered, is nearly five weeks.

    Doctor Shortage Results in Physician Turning Away Patient for Being Over 55

    Dr. Derek Nesdoly was advertising for new patients, but when Edith Paulus, age 59, called to ask about being a patient, she was turned away because she was older than 55. There are not enough doctors in Canada to treat everyone that needs to be treated. Nearly 1.5 million Canadians cannot find a family physician. Canada needs about 15,000 more doctors, yet there aren't even that many students in medical schools today.

    Canadians Have a Higher Risk of Death After Heart Attack

    In a study published in the medical journal Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association, Canadians were discovered to have a higher rate of death after a heart attack than U.S. citizens. In the United States, patients have a death rate of 19.6% after suffering from a heart attack due to a completely blocked coronary artery; in Canada, the rate was 21.4%. Americans are more likely to receive more aggressive treatment like angioplasty or bypass surgery, while Canadians are usually just given medication.

    Health care in the United States is not perfect. The cost is high, and some people fall through the cracks. The answer is not socialized medicine. In Canada, socialized medicine has led to doctor shortages, long wait times, and necessary care that is not covered.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sources:

    "Cancer Patients Question Why PET Scan Not Covered." CBC News, May 28, 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/05/28/pet-scan-ontario.html?ref=rss#skip300x250

    "Curing Canada's Doctor Shortage." National Post, January 15, 2008. http://www.nationalpost.com/life/story.html?id=222287

    Derfel, Aaron. "Surgery Backlog Tops 5,500 at Kids' Hospitals; One-Year Waits Common." The Gazette (Montreal), December 4, 2004. http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canbacklog.html

    "Ontario Physician Turns Away Patient for Being 55+." CTV.ca News, March 17, 2006. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060317/doctor_age_060317/20060317?hub=CTVNewsAt11

    "Patients Shouldn't Wait More Than Eight Weeks for Cardiac Defibrillator." Canadian Press, May 24, 2005. http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/candefib.html

    "Wait Times for Surgery, Medical Treatments at All-Time High: Report." CBC News, October 15, 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html

    Ubelacker, Sheryl. "Canadians Have Higher Death Risk Than Americans After Heart Attack: Study." Canada.com, September 20, 2004. http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/deathrisk.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. To Anon:

    Thank You for hijacking this thread and overwhelming us with material that you had at the ready, just waiting until you could pull the cut-and-paste trigger.

    So silly of me to imagine that you were interested in a discussion, rather than in baiting me.

    Nothing you pasted there has any relevance to anything I said, nor to halachic definitions of what constitutes murder.

    I do hope that the new Heath Care Laws will include coverage for treating OCD.

    Good Bye.
    No further repsonses from me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dovid Shlomo,

    You really have to calm down.

    No one had material "at the ready"- it's called searching for relevant articles and presenting documented facts rather than swinging baseless opinion and theory. You have proven your disregard of facts and rather choose to go the route which is consistent with making up psakim from Rav Elyashiv Ztvk"l [something that you amazingly admitted].

    Unlike Rabbi Bechhofer, you don't seem to have the intellectual honesty to support your opinion or concede to mine. Rather you choose to make silly and baseless accusations.

    If you can't take the heat [of documented facts and intellectual discourse] stay out of the kitchen.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And before you go, maybe you should explain for the readers of this site, how you come to classify the treatment of the medical conditions mentioned in the articles [e.g. Cardiac Arrest] above as, in your words, "heroic...pointless interventions."

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous:

    I do view changing the status quo, in the same light as in theory starting a system in a new Country? In other words, while there is a difference between saying that when the United States was initally establishing a Health Care system, it should have been modeled in a way that offers coverage for everyone, and something else completely to say that a Country should change it's currently established system even if it means [here I am changing your phrasing] potentially depriving a segment of the population of some of its care.

    My favorite president, TR, was in favor of initiating such coverage.

    As to having a beloved relative who r"l had a condition that under the current health care system would be treated and cured - and would be able to enjoy life for decades to come, I would not be ready to say "you and those in your condition who currently are being treated and are brimming with hope of future years of happiness and joy, must die, since we must have the others who are uninsured in mind." That's a debating position, not a real life one.

    In an ideal Jewish government, the provision and allocation of healthcare would be one of Beis Din's responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "In an ideal Jewish government, the provision and allocation of healthcare would be one of Beis Din's responsibilities."

    I really don't understand what a utopian messianic society has to do with our current reality, where it is clear that there are not enough resources to properly support such a free healthcare system for all. It is clear from other Countries such as Canada and England, that it is a failed system- which reflects the shocking numbers of people who would be receiving medical attention and cure in America, to simply die due to lack of resources in their Country. Why then would you advocate for the USA to follow their lead?

    "What experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
    G. W. F. Hegel

    ReplyDelete
  31. This post is manifestly erroneous. I say this as someone who has mediated in cases of rebbeim being terminated from employment, as I am both an ordained (though not practicing) rabbi, and an attorney who specializes in labor and employment law.

    For sources, if one needs sources for something which is clearly based on minhag and not din, one can see the articles by Rabbi Broyde, available on the jlaw website. Needless to say, R. Bechhofer's position is not the only one. (And I am, really, quite surprised that you would casually wonder if anyone who disagrees with you is a maimon. That is both insulting,extraordinarily arrogrant, and I am sad to say, ignorant.)

    In America, there is no minhag at all for severance. Period. It is universally acknowledged that there is no such thing as minhag tagrin in the US unles it is codified by law. Severance is the same. Unlike other countries, there is no federal law requiring any severance, period. There are thousands of thousands of employers who dont pay it, regardless of the reason for separation.

    The sense of entitlment R. Bechofer asserts on behalf of the rebbe establishment is just one of the reasons people are growing frustrated with them as a class. (See R. Adlerstein's recent article on class warfare on Cross currents.) People are lucky just to have jobs, and here we have a Rabbi saying rebbeim should be entitled to a whopping big 8.3%payout for doing nothing, when millions of others get nothing.

    This is precisely the same attitude expressed by the secular counterpart of rebbeim - schoolteachers - in Wisconsin. And look what that got them. In times of plenty, few people mind a nice severance package for teachers. That does not establish a minhag, it establishes the good will of klal yisrael, WHEN FEASIBLE.

    If I were an armchair pschologist, I would ruminate on your professed love of Obamacare, and your admiration of TR, the father of all RINOs. You yourself are not a working man. To the extent you work, you do not pay the same rates of taxes that everyone else does. How easy it is for you to be generous on someone else's cheshbon. I see how, with this mindset, you can claim as a davar poshut that schools should be paying this exorbitant type of severance.

    Kalman Zev

    ReplyDelete
  32. I really like comments on the order of those just made by "Kalman Zev." They are wonderfully self-explanatory. No additional comment necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  33. As to Anonymous's most recent comment: I am not being Utopian. If BD would take charge today they would have a chiyuv to tax a part of the community to provide health care for the other part of the community. See (and listen, please):
    http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/06/mp3-of-my-shiur-on-obamacare-in-halacha.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. "If BD would take charge today they would have a chiyuv to tax a part of the community to provide health care for the other part of the community."

    After reading comments such as "Kalman Zev"'s don't you agree that such a thing happening before bias goel tzedek is not realistic?

    [Could you please move all comments regarding healthcare to a seperate thread that will have relevance to the post it is linked to?]

    ReplyDelete
  35. "...People are lucky just to have jobs, and here we have a Rabbi saying rebbeim should be entitled to a whopping big 8.3%payout for doing nothing..."

    Well I see arguing against the Gedolei HaDor is not the only problem you have- I'm assuming you didn't say the above words to your clients before you "mediated in cases of rebbeim being terminated from employment"...or do you only represent the employers, rather than the rebbeim, who in your words, "do nothing"? Yeah I suppose that you are using one tactic to convince yourself to feel guilt free.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous of 8:32 pm:

    It is not an all or nothing proposition. We must work to make society as Utopian as possible, notwithstanding the recalcitrant.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Half of a utopian society is not a utopian society. It's like saying half a shechted animal- if it is done only partialy then it's a nivailah. It's not "as kosher as possible." Trying to put in place a system that you know could not be done properly at his time- and that the current economy and medical market could not possible sustain- is not making a society "as utopian as possible"- it's just making a "bad situation" into a "worse situation."

    ReplyDelete
  38. True there are some circumstances which a "step in the right direction" solves the problem, just not in totality. The situation we are discussing is one where a premature "step in the right direction"- will cause more bad than good. And at the end will never be viewed as a "step in the right direction."

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous, you are claiming expertise that I know not that you possess. The final straw for me vis-a-vis Obamacare was Consumer's Reports advocacy of the plan as a positive development and improvement over the current situation. I have found them over the years to be reliable, honest and trustworthy. An anonymous commenter on a blog is none of the above. Accepting that it is a step forward, we have a possibility of building a better society - surely an aspiration of we who yearn לתקן עולם במלכות שד-י

    ReplyDelete
  40. I, like yourself don't claim "expertise." Surely you don't think that a read of "Consumer Reports" gives you any standing to approach this subject in a factual intellectual light. Recognizing that you are a very learned, intellectual, and creative person- how do you undecut yourself to advocate for somthing in which you admit you know nothing about ( I think a fair assesment if your the extent of your understanding is reading Consumer Reports)?

    Would you advocate for a new approach in a Halacha question without learning the actual texts- from the Rishonim to the Responsa on the subject? How about if it was a Halachic question dealing with pikuach nefesh? Surely you wouldn't rely on a monthly a monthly likut publication which "you found over the years to be reliable, honest and trustworthy." And I assume you would look down at a "Rabbi" who would- for the simple clear reason that such behaviour would at best blatant negligence, and worst intentional recklessness.

    However, when it comes to the subject of healthcare- which indeed is a subject dealing with inyanei pikuach nefesh (we are talking about many people potentially dying with the new approach that you are publicly subscribing to)- you appear content and satisfied with the approach of the above "rabbi." You write, based on reading "Consumer Reports," that you are "accepting that it is a step forward."

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Perhaps your conclusion would have merit if you would be able to say:

    a) You researched the topic in depth.

    b) You could disprove the dozens upon dozens of studies and stories (some of which are cited above) which were written based on researched data and testimonies that verify moving to socialized medicine would cause more bad than good.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Regarding your general blind faith in Consumer Reports, did you read this article?:

    http://www.cmpi.org/in-the-news/in-the-news/obamacares-medical-mercenaries/

    An excerpt:

    "Moreover, it reflects political cravenness on the part of its creators who seek not only to promote Obamacare but cash in on it. Consumers Union, the group that puts out Consumer Reports and also supports a government-run health system, is part of this effort. In 2008 it pushed hard for a highly criticized and widely ridiculed system of rating health care quality in terms of how little care was delivered. By allying with ABIMF and ACP to promote Choosing Wisely, Consumers Union can relaunch its early failure with a medical seal of approval and use it to try to boost subscriptions to its newsletters and magazine. The ABIMF is giving cash to the National Physicians Alliance (NPA). Christine Cassell who heads up the ABIMF, is also on NPA's board along with Rachel DeGolia, director of the Soros-funded Universal Healthcare Action Network. The Bayview Healthcenter in Baltimore, which employs ABIMF board member David Hollander, also received Choosing Wisely dough. Cassell, along with former ACP president Harold Sox, were early advocates of comparative effectiveness research (CER). Sox appointed Cassell to the Institute of Medicine panel that decided how CER should be conducted."

    ReplyDelete
  43. And did you read this article?

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2009/10/consumer-reports-specious-stand-on-health-care-reform/

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous:

    Generally, when one uses the term "final straw" it means the last step in the process, not the first and only one, as you seem to misunderstand. Please listen to the shiur I posed before the article in CR was published.

    ReplyDelete
  45. How did you base your "final straw" on a magazine article written by indivduals who have been publicly called out for their bias on the subject?

    Before you allowed the article to be your "final straw," did you read these two articles?:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2009/10/consumer-reports-specious-stand-on-health-care-reform/

    http://www.cmpi.org/in-the-news/in-the-news/obamacares-medical-mercenaries/

    ReplyDelete
  46. Correction of link to purchase Sefer [the one on this site appears to be broken]:

    http://zbermanbooks.com/product-40416.html

    ReplyDelete
  47. 4. The severance is only due if the position is still extant.

    This is startling based on your series of posts in 2007 where the yeshiva certainly didn't have rebbe positions available anymore - you write in Oct 27, 2007 post " However, it still exists as a corporate entity with assets, retains (at least one) former Rebbe as an employee, and functions as a Shul and Beis Medrash. If you call the institution's phone number, you will still be answered: "Yeshivas X.""

    So that case does not meet the requirements as set forth by your uncle in his fourth point. Your argument that "a former rebbe still works as an empoyee" is irrelevent - because it is clear that there are no rebbi positions there anymore.

    You're busy arguing that point 5 that Yehivas X didn't close. But without it, that case did not meet case 4, accoding to the info you presented.

    Also please explain your uncle's 3rd point "
    3. The severance is only due if the employer terminates the employee, and vice versa." - if the employee quits he still gets severence?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Please see:
    http://rygb.blogspot.com/2013/01/chodesh-lshanah-redux.html

    Mesupak:

    Look back at my post:
    http://rygb.blogspot.com/2007/10/pitfalls-of-zavla-contd.html

    The institution in question asserted:
    1. It had not itself established a minhag to pay severance.
    2. It had not terminated the Rebbe, but had closed, and was therefore not required to pay severance.


    Why didn't the institution assert that it had eliminated the position and on that basis exempt themselves?

    It was because this Rebbe, like other Rabbeim in that yeshiva, was retained on staff as a "Rebbe" even when he had one or even no talmidim. The reasons for this singular (or, perhaps, not so singular) phenomenon are not of general concern. But therefore it could not - and did not - claim that the position had been eliminated.

    as to the "and vice versa," it was a typo, and should have read, of course, "and not vice versa."

    ReplyDelete