DEFENCE OF HEALTH INSURANCE

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 278, 20 August 1938, Page 15

DEFENCE OF HEALTH INSURANCE

Reply By Dr. D. G.

McMillan

OPPOSITION STATEMENTS DISCLAIMED

Dominion Special Service.

Palmerston North, August 18.

A reply in defence of the national health insurance scheme was made by Dr. D. G. McMillan, M.P. for Dunedin West, at Palmerston North to-night. He disclaimed statements made by Opposition members that the scheme would interfere with freedom, abolish private hospitals and socialise the medical profession, and ho reiterated previous claims that the tax to provide finance for the scheme would not exceed 1/- in the £l. The large crowd present gave the speaker an almost uninterrupted hearing. National health insurance was a form of group budgeting, said Dr. McMillan. Just as taxation for defence was group budgeting against risk, so the community was entitled to budget against social risks in the common Interest. He described at length the steps taken to introduce health insurance in Great Britain and the opposition of the medical profession to it. Though before the scheme operated the medical profession conscientiously believed that the standard of practice would deteriorate, statistics since taken had disproved that belief. On the contrary. Dr. McMillan said, the profession reached a higher standard than was set before. The first reference to health or social insurance in New Zealand was made by Major Atkinson in 1882. Also in 1911-12 the Reform Party’s election manifesto stated that if the party, was returned it would introduce national health insurance. Nothing was done, however, until the Labour Party introduced its comprehensive health insurance scheme. Social Security Scheme. Social security, he said, should be divided into two classes—benefits in kind and benefits in cash. Should it be asked whether there was need for reform in the medical system, statistics proved that only two people in 10 had their teeth properly cared for and one person only in 100 ever had sufficient medical examination and treatment. There was a great need for reform of the health system. The big reason why people did not go to theii doctors more often was very often the financial one. It was the aim of the Government’s scheme to. remove the economic barrier which stood between doctor and patient and to remove the embarrassment in paying the bill after treatment. It was impossible for people to budget against sickness. In a year among a million people 470,000 did not become sick, 320,000 became sick once, 14,000 twice, 50,000 throe times and 20,000 four or more times. One hundred mothers in a year died in New Zealand during childbirth and 700 babies before their first birthday and 500 before they were a month old.

At present unco-ordinated and guerrilla warfare only was .being waged against disease because there was no constructive plan operating to keep the community free from disease. A campaign was provided for in the Government s scheme. It was known that . in New Zealand heart disease killed twice as many people as cancer, and that measles and whooping cough ran a definite epidemic cycle. If the country had its health services*organised properly these epidemics could be dealt with before they became of national dimensions.

Burden On Hospitals.

The campaign trgalnst disease would relieve the burden on the public hospitals, which last' year treated 100,000 people as in-patients, their period of stay aggregating 2,000,000 days. More than 10 per cent, of the whole population of the Dominion were treated as in mid out patients.

It had been sa'ld that people with incomes over a certain amount would be precluded from receiving the benefits of the proposed health insurance. This was a grossly unfair statement, one which was directly opposed to the democratic principles of the country, and if such was the case the scheme would not be tolerated by the people. After giving the population of various centres and districts in the Dominion, Dr. McMillan said that 50 more specialists would bo required to provide a proper health service for the people. The Government's scheme was one which was far more preventive than that of I he B.M.A. in Great Britain and that proposed by the Opposition. He .said that last year the Government established a medical research committee and granted it £5OOO. Previous Gow ermnents granted miserly sums for research— £899 in 1930-31, and £lB5, £lO, £489, £B, and £lO4 in the successive years to 1935-30. The Government's housing policy, as well ns its more adequate pensions and wages, would do a groat deal to prevent disease. It was proposed to pay those who preferred medical treatment in private hospitals 6/- a day toward their expenses.

Propaganda that tl.e scheme would restrain friendly societies was ridiculous and unwarranted. The scheme v ould give relief < f collective rates amounting to between £250,000 and £300,000 to the hospitals yearly, and there would not be the constant cry for more bed,s.

It had been said that it was the intention of the Government to socialise the medical profession, but such an intention was far from the fact. Doctors would become sub-contractors, receiving payment from the State for their services. There would be no interference with the personal contact between ’octor and patient. “I would not take Dr. Jamieson's recent statement too seriously,” he said, referring to the results of the vote on the health insurance scheme among members of the B.M.A. “It was a vote of preference—the B.M.A. scheme in England against the Government’s scheme in New Zealand.” He said the result of the vote was being interpreted as opposition to the Government’s scheme. “But it’s unjustifiable to interpret it as a vote of opposition,” he added.