THE MEDICAL SCHEME.

Evening Star, Issue 24003, 30 September 1941, Page 3

THE MEDICAL SCHEME.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Recently we have had a lot of talk and also Town Hall meetings (to suit the Tory class! regarding the State medical scheme. Mr Allen, along with his Tory followers, would have us to believe that the Government medical scheme is all wrong. Germany intro-

duced this scheme years before the last i War. England followed suit, and yet Mr Allen and his go-getter world try to convince us that they have more intelligence than the medical brains of Great Britain and Germany. Mr Allen also refers to the 30 per cent, of the doctors who are overseas, and says that the Government is trying to force this Bill- - behind their backs. If all the boys that left Dunedin had been here in the municipal elections _Mr Allen would never be mayor of this city today.—l am. etc., P. Sullivan. September 29.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir, —Whilst reading “'John Gilpin’s” reply to “Democrat’s” letter, I wondered if ho remembered that the last meeting called by the same Tory clique that sponsored the doctors’ meeting of protest was called to try to force the Government into bringing into being conscription of young men for overseas service. If he did remember it, 1 cannot remember him protesting about the freedom of the young men being encroached on. But that conscription, of course, was only to be applied to the every-day individual, mostly, 1 think, working men who compose about 80 per cent, of the country, and, of course, must, and always have, carried the major war burden, for which they are paid the magnificent sum of 7s per day. 1 do not think the Government wants the doctors to risk their lives, but it does want to put the health service of this country on a sound economic basis —that is, give the doctor an assured income and the people an assurance that their ailments will be looked 1 after, when illness has caused their earning power to _ be nil. Of course, if all the doctors in New Zealand were like Dr North there would be no need for a Doctors’ Bill; but alas, to my sorrow, I know that there are not many doctors with his humanitarian outlook on life, so the Bill must and will go through. “ John Gilpin ” missed the most important point “ Democrat ” made, and that was the obvious fact that there was not one member of that great body of people who voted for the Government and the Social Security Bill last election on the

stage. The last election was fought around the Social Security Bill, and the people gave the Government a mandate to carry on with the Bill. This, I think, answers Mr Smellie’s misstatements made at the Town Hall meeting. 1 was and still am in favour of total conscription of man power and "wealth in war time. —I am. etc.. Government Supporter, September 30.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In reply to ” John Gilpin,” 1 Nave been looking through an interesting collection of pamphlets, newspaper articles, and various clippings published during the last election. John Gilpin ” will naturally uphold the tactics of the National Party, and no one doubts the honesty and veracity of the newspapers, therefore my collection proves very conclusively that the main issue of last election was national Social Security and national medical benefits. Perhaps he will remember the stonewalling of these measures in the House. He may even remember the statement of Michael Joseph Savage that for the passing of these measures in the interest of all people, ho would willingly give his life. Ho lived only until the Bill was passed. “ John Gilpin ” may, like his namesake, be “ a citizen of credit and renown,” but be has a very hazy idea of the meaning of democracy. May 1 refer him to Abraham Lincoln’s worldfamous definition of democracy as “ government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Yet ho, too, was scorned and ridiculed by wordy exponents of private enterprise not only in the U.S.A., but in Great Britain also. After his death even that doughty warrior 1 Punch ’ was ashamed of its attitude, acknowledged his greatness, and apologised for its ridicule and lack of vision. “ John Gilpin ” extols private enterprise—this much-vaunted private enterprise which demands subsidies and Government guarantees against loss, which protects itself under the Limited Liability Act, and when it desires shelves its responsibility and leaves the shareholder. too often trusting widows and old people, to carry the liability.

Gathering momentum during the last 100 years the limited liability company with its profit motive, has, been the curse of our race, and the greed foj money, land, and property an obsession. Yet all these things will pass even as a great ship cleaves the waves and leaves no mark on the ocean; but tho people go on for ever. Is “ John Gilpin ” then not concerned that we leave behind us a healthy nation, that proper application of medical science may be available to all whereby disease may bo checked at its very beginning, or is he desirous of leaving a heritage of hospitals, and more hospitals, and a burden ever increasing of hospital rates? When the universities, medical schools, research institutes, and hospitals are supported by tho earnings of tho people, surely they have a right to ask the doctors to give a return. It is the people who, through ill-health, provide the doctors’ income to-day. Why, then, such a pother over this Bill? I think “ John Gilpin ” cannot know that on only one occasion were all delegates to the League of Nations at Geneva in unanimous agreement, and that was in the urgent need for national Social Security and a national medical scheme in ail countries. I think JO or more countries were represented, and yet when delegates returned to their own countries not one had the spunk to put the proposal into practice. I believe the New Zealand branch of the B.M.A. went into a huddle and discussed the matter, but their deliberations may be likened to an elephant in labour bringing forth a mouse. I am afraid much of the opposition to the scheme is related to the bogey of social prestige; a matter which gives much amusement to visitors from abroad. We have, for instance, Sir Janies and Lady Vyneering ana Dr and Mrs Whiffenpoff announced with their litter and our visitors chortle with glee at the snobbocracy which has taken root in our democracy. 0 pioneers, 0 pioneers! who braved stormy seas in little ships, toiled amidst privation and made habitation in the wastelands, that their descendants might grow up a happy, healthy people, how grieved you would be at the pettiness, greed, and snobbery which have become as a

fungus in the fair land you prepared for us.—l am, etc., Mac. September 29. I