善心的回報
我的姨媽一家十多人當難民來到南加州,在洛杉磯外郊租了一小公寓 住,一家十幾口兩間房,住得那麼多人,房東早晚會發現,當務之急是去找一個小房子,它不太限制房客的人數,可暫得安居家計,四處尋找來到Del Monte市外,看到一老人家在前院打理房子,好像是打算在清理完畢再招租,我姨媽的孩子下來請教租房子的事,他説我把房子整修好了會出租,孩子説讓我們幫你修好了房子就租給我們吧!就這樣他們把房子修好就住進來了,房東萬萬想不到會有十多人住在一起,但他了解難民的苦衷也沒追究,多年來都沒有加過房租。
房東是個老人家自己一個人住,聽説有個兒子住在附近。我姨媽常抽空去看他而且帶自己做的小吃給他。他説他的兒子都不來看他,是一個有錢但心裏相當孤單的一個老人。有一天我姨媽去看他見到前門上了大鎖才知道他己過世。時過半年,有一個穿西裝的人來敲門但沒人敢開門,他只好回去,來回好多次才讓他進來,他用英語説而我姨媽一句都聽不懂,好像是有關於房子的事情,她心想糟了他們來此要回房子。他帶來一些文件要我姨媽簽名但她看不懂又聽不懂英文,這律師只好作罷。幾天後我姨媽的兒子在家,他來到並把公事包裡面的文件解釋給他。
他説我是律師,是你房東的產業法定執行人,他的遺囑裏把你現住的房子免税送給你,他留下足夠的現金要我給你付了房子增值稅,請你就在這裡簽名,其他的事情我會給你辦好。
我姨心善,每月的錢只夠於節約的家用,但她有用不完的"心"錢,她很照顧她的大姊,我媽。我媽也很愛䕶她。她的一孫女,考SAT 滿分,在耶魯畢業現從醫,美國就是這樣可敬,一個難民的孩子,只要盡力,都會實現其理想。 吳元椿
我的姨媽一家十多人當難民來到南加州,在洛杉磯外郊租了一小公寓 住,一家十幾口兩間房,住得那麼多人,房東早晚會發現,當務之急是去找一個小房子,它不太限制房客的人數,可暫得安居家計,四處尋找來到Del Monte市外,看到一老人家在前院打理房子,好像是打算在清理完畢再招租,我姨媽的孩子下來請教租房子的事,他説我把房子整修好了會出租,孩子説讓我們幫你修好了房子就租給我們吧!就這樣他們把房子修好就住進來了,房東萬萬想不到會有十多人住在一起,但他了解難民的苦衷也沒追究,多年來都沒有加過房租。
房東是個老人家自己一個人住,聽説有個兒子住在附近。我姨媽常抽空去看他而且帶自己做的小吃給他。他説他的兒子都不來看他,是一個有錢但心裏相當孤單的一個老人。有一天我姨媽去看他見到前門上了大鎖才知道他己過世。時過半年,有一個穿西裝的人來敲門但沒人敢開門,他只好回去,來回好多次才讓他進來,他用英語説而我姨媽一句都聽不懂,好像是有關於房子的事情,她心想糟了他們來此要回房子。他帶來一些文件要我姨媽簽名但她看不懂又聽不懂英文,這律師只好作罷。幾天後我姨媽的兒子在家,他來到並把公事包裡面的文件解釋給他。
他説我是律師,是你房東的產業法定執行人,他的遺囑裏把你現住的房子免税送給你,他留下足夠的現金要我給你付了房子增值稅,請你就在這裡簽名,其他的事情我會給你辦好。
我姨心善,每月的錢只夠於節約的家用,但她有用不完的"心"錢,她很照顧她的大姊,我媽。我媽也很愛䕶她。她的一孫女,考SAT 滿分,在耶魯畢業現從醫,美國就是這樣可敬,一個難民的孩子,只要盡力,都會實現其理想。 吳元椿
媽!您的信我收到了
有這樣的一個故事,在鄕下有個媽媽,年紀老了,有一個不孝的獨生子在城裡多年,一年音訊沒有兩行字,老媽每日期侍,自己不識字,到了一賣中藥店,請大夫代書,大夫以中藥名寫道"知母乳香,當歸熟地"信寄了出去,幾個月沒有音訊,老母親孤苦交加,不知道怎麼辦,她來到當鋪去找那裡的當家訴苦並請他代書,代書説妳把這封信寄出去就好了,代書寫道"萬物可當押,家書抵萬金,隨信附上銀票一千元,孩子,你查收",他還附上一首陶淵明的詩"翼翼歸鳥,相林徘徊,岂思失落,欣及舊栖⋯⋯ 就是遠去的歸鳥,都要找到舊日停留的地方"。不過幾天果然兒子寄來回信,"媽,信收到了,可是沒看到銀票"。 吳元椿
有這樣的一個故事,在鄕下有個媽媽,年紀老了,有一個不孝的獨生子在城裡多年,一年音訊沒有兩行字,老媽每日期侍,自己不識字,到了一賣中藥店,請大夫代書,大夫以中藥名寫道"知母乳香,當歸熟地"信寄了出去,幾個月沒有音訊,老母親孤苦交加,不知道怎麼辦,她來到當鋪去找那裡的當家訴苦並請他代書,代書説妳把這封信寄出去就好了,代書寫道"萬物可當押,家書抵萬金,隨信附上銀票一千元,孩子,你查收",他還附上一首陶淵明的詩"翼翼歸鳥,相林徘徊,岂思失落,欣及舊栖⋯⋯ 就是遠去的歸鳥,都要找到舊日停留的地方"。不過幾天果然兒子寄來回信,"媽,信收到了,可是沒看到銀票"。 吳元椿
"Le Misérables"是法國的著名小說,我從網上摘了一節,譯成中文來自娛。
巴黎的故事
我把塞納河叫做巴黎的"正義河",法國史學作家 Victor Hugo寫了一本書叫做"Les Misérables",後編為舞台劇及電影…⋯悲慘世界。一位盡責的偵探警察Javert在忠責與恩義之間難以取捨下,只有以命報恩,以身殉職,而投身於塞納河。"Les Misérables"是法國的經典文學名作,故事是這樣説:
一七九七年法國革命期以後,由一八一五年到一八三五年這期間的巴黎,廣大市民貧困交加,霍亂疫情,市民Jean Valjean 一貧如洗且家有妹妹跟她孩子們,餓極了只好挺而走險為竊,偷了幾條麵包因而入獄,出來後因曾是囚犯找不到工作而流落街頭,來到了一教堂敲門乞食,食飽還在教堂過夜,怎知盗性萌生,黎明前把壇上的銀盅銀杯一一帶走而又被捕,警察把他帶到教堂跟牧師對證,牧師説道那些都是送給他的,為了取信,牧師在警察面前跟Jean Valjean謊道你怎麼忘掉這支銀台,快拿去吧!警察只好放了他。隨著牧師對他説:Valjean先生你要把這些偷來的銀器去做些好事,可是他本性難移,一再順手牽羊。這個案件就落在偵探警察Javert的手上而被追捕,就是這樣,這位敬業又盡責的Javert幾十年下來他的一生就放在跟蹤追捕Jean Valjean上。
因為他是累犯,如果被抓到將會終身監禁。這期間Jean Valjean感受到牧師的感化而改名來歸正,從此在商場身擁萬貫,在仕途上貴為賢者,善行廣益。有一天,當一個小城市長的他看到一個貧民困押在櫃車床底,車太重,沒人敢來解救,他自告奮勇的把車移開,救了這個可憐的人,Javert看個正著,他知道只有Jean Valjean這個人才有這樣大的力氣,因為當時因偷麵包而坐牢的Jean Valjean他在牢裏,Javert領教過這犯人的牛力。他把疑惑告訴給當局也向市長報告,也想就此將他一軍。過了一段時間Javert警探來跟"市長"報告説當局已捉到那早期順手牽羊的嫌犯並即上公堂且他己認罪。他心底處知道上堂的嫌犯是無辜的,他貴為市長又有錢,大可一言不發地安渡餘生,但是他良心發現,等到上堂當時他向法官自首,市民都不僅以為信。曾經受惠的市民為他感嘆!他再入獄,終身勞改,被扣押在船艙做推划撑奴,在一次大風雨中航船出了事,大水衝滾而來,他把浸在水裏的船奴鐵手拷解開後自己跳入大海,他救了船友一命後再也不見蹤影,警方認為他己死亡而結案。
逃生回到巴黎,有一天,在街頭遇見一苦難小女孩,相問之下,發現她是個養女,養父是個刻薄的旅館主人,她一生命苦,飽受虐待,Jean Valjean付給了她的養父這多年來的饍養費,把這在水深火熱中的女孩從她養父家裡接過來,從今以後他把她視如己出。又是被追蹤的嫌犯,父女兩人來到一小屋要租,想在這裡隱居,這房東認得他,原來他是這屋主的救命恩人,是當時被壓在車下的可憐小子。感恩的他就把這父女收容多時然後再想辦法解救他們。這屋主他在修道院做園丁,Jean Valjean父女因此就被修道院收容,他們倆在這裡找到容身之處並為這修道院整理庭園,女兒得到在修道院讀書進修的機會。八年就這樣過去。
這時候巴黎正醖釀著廣大造反,到處學生起義。他的女兒深愛這起義領袖,但為了保護女兒安全,他不以為然也不認可。曾經當過市長的他,深知他女兒所愛的人早晚會有生命危險,可是他愛女心切就穿著戰衣去起義總部找這學生領袖,他沒法決定要去殺他還是去保護他。在總部,學生帶來了一個被捕的警察説要立即把他處決,Jean Valjean認出那是Javert警探,他跟學生領袖説這件事就讓我來幹吧!他把Javert帶到後院朝天開了一槍,"你走吧,快點走",他説。Javert跟Jean Valjean説;雖然你這次放過我但今後我還是追捕你去歸案的。
回來到學生總部,起義失敗,他女兒心愛的這學生領袖受重傷,活著的學生廖廖無幾,Jean Valjean沿著巴黎地下排水道扛著他女兒的愛人逃生,在水道出口等着他的就是警探Javert,他跟Javert懇求説能否讓他回家一下再回來你這裡投案,Javert説我就在此等你。他如約回來時Javert己不在,只見塞納河面漂流着警探的衣物。英雄識英雄,他深感這盡職者的心靈困擾。責任與恩義之間,只能取其一,Javert以生命的代價來給自己做交代,成仁取義,也好讓Jean Valjean得到自由,安心地活下去。所以我才把塞納河叫做"正義河"⋯⋯ the Seine, river of righteousness。
這個故事把世上人間的親善恩愛,信義仁慈,權貴貪富,父女情深,人格職守,知恩圖報,飢餓交加,酸甜苦辣的人生都滿滿的充在一個葫蘆裏。
"Les Misérables"⋯⋯ 悲慘世界的,歌劇選曲"I Dreamed a Dream"… 我夢想這樣的一個夢,我夢到愛是永恆的,我夢到上帝的寛恕,很多的夢難得成真,很多瀑風雨難以避免,我夢想我這生會是這麼樣,應該與我現在的困苦交逼生活有天獄之別。 吳元椿
病有所醫
我有一個朋友在美國成家立業,幾十年來還是保持加拿大的公民,他説萬一重病不致於破產。許多臺灣朋友還保留在臺戶口,因為臺灣有全民保險。生有其育,老有所養,病有所醫,這是人類的崇最高的價值,這一境界,美國還辦不到。美國的醫護是建在企業利損的本質上,總是認為市場的需求競爭是引發效益的動力。在以利潤為導向的醫療供應上,會令有疾病前科的人買不到保險,很多中產和中產階級以下的人一臨大病就被迫破産,讓國民在治療與破産間徘徊是無須有的殘酷。
1965年在台北,我跟鳴遠高中時的同學去吃晚飯回來,路面石子多,機動車滑倒,他胸肋骨斷傷,我沒事。我叫了計程車把他送到大醫院急救室,醫院要先繳掛號費,我説天晚明天銀行開門再付款,不行,那你們就明天再來掛號,我只好把他留下,再於當晚筹來掛號的錢,他進了急診就醫。在醫院走廊,我看到一個不到十二歲的小女孩,她用手给母親打氣,是手動的打氣設備,防邊的病人説這老人家本來是在醫房裡面有自動供氣機的,沒有錢付,醫院把她搬到走廊,小女兒只好用手給母親打氣,如果她手一停母親就沒氣了,小小年紀的孩子就要忍受天大的責任。第二天我來到醫院的走廊,老人家不在走廊邊,她已不在人間了。臺灣今天的全民保健,那小女孩再也不要去負擔這天大的使命。四年前我想起那小女孩,寫了這感覺,全文如下:
Wellness for All
I believe that the universal wellness of our country’s citizens is a matter of national priority.
I wonder if the outcome to the healthcare bill would be different if Congressional members’ healthcare coverage was withheld while debating on the bill and until the bill is signed into law. Republican presidential candidates pledged to repeal the so‐labeled “Obamacare” once in the Oval office. I also wonder what the Democrats will do if they gain Congressional control the next time around? Will they vow to repeal the so called “Republican Care”?
It appears that our representatives in Washington are playing chicken with us. You see, in the chicken farming business, farmers practice an all‐in and all‐out operation. When chickens are three to four pounds in weight and they are mature enough for market, the farmer will catch all the chickens, place them in coops, then clean and sanitize the chicken house. No chicken is left behind. The fear is that even one remaining chicken can cross-contaminate diseases to the incoming flock. If each party is balking and engaging in an all‐in and all‐out political chicken game with healthcare, then many uninsured Americans will have to wait until the chicken game is over for health coverage. Ironically, each party’s signature healthcare bill contains what the other party wanted. Can they work on the differences while keeping the common elements? Are we so concerned about who proposes the legislation that actual healthcare for the American people is held hostage?
Some argue that requiring payment of health insurance premiums is unconstitutional. Is requiring payment for car insurance in order to drive on the road unconstitutional as well? Why is mandatory payment for car insurance different from required payment for health insurance? If a poor and uninsured driver is involved in an accident, the driver with full insurance coverage can turn to no fault insurance for financial remedy. In the current healthcare situation, however, the financial impact on the rich by the uninsured is not apparent. Democrats were cautioned by opponents that “social engineering” could bankrupt America and is unpatriotic. The same rhetoric can be said that Republicans practice “free market Darwinism” with the wellness of its citizens. The answer lies somewhere in -between.
Our current non‐portable healthcare policy hampers economic development. In order to keep health coverage, aspiring entrepreneurs are reluctant to leave their jobs for a fledgling venture. There are many more who remain in jobs they no longer have a passion for. As a result, the talent of our workforce is not optimized, and the productivity of our nation suffers.
Universal health coverage is neither a handout nor a right; it is a fundamental service. We are still a very rich country, yet many citizens live without health insurance. To become ill is hardly a matter of choice. There are enough stories out there telling us about families who are confronted with the “Sophie’s Choice” of facing bankruptcy or deferring critical treatment, especially when a child is concerned.
In order for an all inclusive health coverage to work, funding for a subsidized premium must come from employers, employee contributions and various forms of taxation. Voluntary participation will not work. A profit-driven healthcare provider is not the complete answer to a universally accessible health service, since millions of American are denied coverage and remain uninsured. A government managed public health insurance program and many for- profit healthcare providers can co‐exist and flourish within each market segment. On the foundation of a universal healthcare program, those who are able and willing to pay for it can buy into a private supplemental insurance package enhanced with amenities and privileges provided by various for-profit insurance companies.
Per capita , the U.S. already spends nearly twice as much as other countries on healthcare. Needless to say, our healthcare service is the best in the world, if one can pay for it, and the majority of the population does pay for it. But for those who are not covered, what is the best healthcare is not good enough for them. Even for those with insurance coverage, who would have the stamina to fight with profit-driven insurance companies over billing discrepancies while lying sick in bed or recovering from a major illness? One often asks that if able, to what extent are the American people willing to share the burden of healthcare costs so that all Americans are covered?
The wellness of our country’s citizens includes Social Security. Let’s privatize Social Security, some say. Unless we are ready to forsake the promise of socioeconomic tranquility, privatization of Social Security does not subscribe to an assured income and health service for retiring Americans. That is not what the American ideal is all about.
It is easy to see why a privatized Social Security would make sense when the Dow Jones is up and keeps on going up; but that is not the case. Stock prices can plunge and values evaporate. Are we going to practice “Wall Street roulette” on senior citizens as well? Social Security is a child born out of economic depression. It is not a roulette game the average citizen can risk to play when the only chip on hand is the security of their well-being in their old age.
March 2012
Ax Wu