WHAT IS "FREE"?

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 83, 4 October 1941, Page 8

WHAT IS "FREE"?

With Parliamentary skill the Prime Minister endeavoured to pin the Leader of the Opposition down to a statement of support for or opposition to a national free medical system. Mr. Holland parried, the inquiry, replying, first, that "this Bill doesn't give complete service by any means," and, when the question was pressed: "There is nothing free. Somebody has got. to pay for it." Tt is a great pity that all people are not equally cautious in declaring themselves in favour of "free" gifts. The national medical service, incomplete as it is. will cost somebody £1,400.000 a year, according to the Minister of Health. That cannot come out of the Social Security contributions, which are insufficient to meet the cost of all benefits now. Tt must be met by taxation. But whether it is met by'general taxation or by the tax known as the Social Security contribution, -it must be paid. It is not really free. Then the' question arises: Will the community as a whole^ obtain better value for the payment made than if they paid for the service direct to those who render it?

Undoubtedly some —the poorer people—may do so, as their share of the benefit will be greater than their share of the cost. But this, or more, could have been achieved under the doctors' plan, which offered full service without charge to the poor. For other classes, however, there is room for questioning the value. The operation of the medical benefit scheme will involve niuch organisation and expense, for it is not to be assumed (at least we hope not) that the Government will pay out some £1,400,000 without accountancy, audit, and inspection machinery. A platoon or two, at least, perhaps a battalion, of new civil servants will be , added to the vast existing army. Part of the money will go that way. Will there be better • service? There may be, but not at less cost—either to the community or the individual. Probably the poorer people will avail themselves of attention more readily, as it can be understood that these have sometimes hesitated to call in a doctor, even though well knowing he would not press for payment. Yet this could, as we have pointed out, have been provided for otherwise. For the rest the value of the scheme must be questionable —as all "free" services must be. Indeed, it appears to us that the inauguration of the plan is due mainly to two factors, both of them undesirable: (1) the assumption of a Socialist-minded Government that a. State service must invariably be an improvement, not only for those receiving no service, but for those receiving good service; (2) the credulous willingness of a section of the public to accept as "free" anything for which they pay indirectly —even if it costs them more than direct payment.