MEDICAL BENEFITS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23805, 11 May 1939, Page 17

MEDICAL BENEFITS

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —Mr Harrison continues to use a smoke screen of verbiage In order to cover his retreat, but I should nevertheless thank him for admitting that the reasons he gave in justification of his attitude to the B.M.A. are invalid He admits that greed for material gam does not explain the attitude of the doctors. He admits that the Government could, without reference to the doctors, subsidise maternity by a fivepound bonus. This implies that the aim of the Government is not to subsidise maternity, but to domineer over the medical profession. He admits that if in any waik of life no one exercised grace and charity, or did anything unless he were paid for it life would thereby lose its beauty and much of its value. But his attitude is unchanged, and he assures us that he is a man whom it is very hard to convince. So it would seem, for he now suggests that the difference between him and us is biological, and therefore, I presume, unsolvable Why. then does he make an appeal to the medical profession to allow itself to be domineered over by the Government? Germany promotes loyalty and unity within her own Reich, but promotes disunity and disloyalty within those people who are the object of her aggression. Mr Harrison admits that the Labour Party promotes unity and loyalty within what they call “ the working class." but does all it can to promote disunity and disloyalty in the “ class ” that believes in private enterprise. thrift and industry. Why? Just as Germany regards certain nations as her biological, that is. racial, enemies., so Mr Harrison regards anyone who does not believe in promoting the war of the classes as a biological enemy who must be overcome by compulsion or war.

Thus it is made quite evident that the real aim of the Health Benefits is not the health of the people. These benefits are a camouflaged attack on what Labour regards as a stronghold of “ class privilege,” the medical profession. Mr Harrison objects to there being one law for the highly-paid and another law for those with more modest incomes. It follows that he is opposed to a sliding scale income tax. for under it there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. Therefore I again ask Mr Harrison how does he decide to which class of the community any man belongs? On whfht principle, or in what characteristic, does he classify men in our society?— l am. etc., M. D. May 10.