THE COERCION OF THE DOCTORS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24733, 9 October 1941, Page 11

THE COERCION OF THE DOCTORS

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—lt is quite unnecessary for Mr W. D. Mason to tender me information concerning the treatment of returned solliers. I probably know more about it than he does, having had personal experience in the matter. In spite of his amusement. I maintain that exemption from payment of income tax and exemption from payment for medical services are parallel cases, and his talk of pauperism is sheer nonsense, used to create party strife. I kept a home and family on £3 2s per week, and certainly never thought of myself as a pauper, but regarded myself as an ordinary working citizen. Your correspondent is not so ignorant as to believe that only the wealthy people of New Zealand systematically practise birth-control. If that were true, there would be no need to worry about the falling population. If it is logical that all should get medical benefits, it is equally logical that- all should get family benefits. The people by their vote signified that, among other marvellous promises, they wished for a certain relief from the heavy medical expenses which they had to pay, but they did not know the scheme in detail, nor did they know how it would be enforced.

I trust your correspondent paid due regard to the statement of the Minister of Health "that steps were now being taken to prevent people taking advantage of the scheme, and sending for a doctor unnecessarily." This statement brings visions of a mother, watching the fever of her sick child mounting ever higher as night approaches, and torn between anxiety for her child and fear of sending for the doctor unnecessarily. This would be bad enough for one living in the town, but how much worse for one out in the country! To fellow workers, I would say that we are being doubly sold to the State, and to the doctors, if they so wish. Instead of our having a choice of doctor, as now. the good doctor will have ■ his choice of patient, and troublesome or neurotic patients may get very summary treatment, and be consigned to unskilled and inexperienced doctors, in which case they will, so far as medical skill and treatment are concerned, become paupers indeed. Mr Mason seems to have been fortunate in his choice of a union. Other unions would have a very uncomplimentary name for him if he acted in the same way to one of them as he did to the union he left. Those correspondents who so boldly sign their names to their letters rather amuse me. They remind me of little puppies, snapping and barking from the safety of their kennel and thete 1 mother's body. It takes all my charity to refrain from wondering whether they had something to advertise? or whether they just wish to let those in high places know of their solicitude for them. I have no doubt Mr Mason will ignore any more anonymous corre' spondence. That is the usual method adopted by correspondents of his type when they are unable to answer or refute a statement.— l am, etc., Plain J«hn. TO THE EDITOR Sir,—Mr Mason's advocacy of coercion of the doctors is true Socialism. Would Mr Mason inform us if he thinks a doctor's skill is his own? Or does he think his education, capital and ability are th>e people's, not the doctor's own? To scoff at thrift is the refuge of life's failure, and the means taken by our Socialists is to reward those who do so, and use Mr Mason's ballot box to keep them in power. Mr Lengstone. when Minister ol Lands, said "a farmer had no more right to his farm than a worker had to the factory he worked in." and Mr Webb told the West Coast miners that "the men with money would soon be extinct."

Mr'Mason wishes to abolish charity. Why not then advocate abolishing the charitable aid tax on farmers' property, and make it a tax on wages and salaries? Those who benefit by it do not contribute one penny to the cost unless they are property holders. The Socialists promised us that this tax would gradually disappear. The process is undoubtedly gradual. In our county it amounted last year to 10s per quarter, or £2 annually. People are prepared to contribute in the interest of Social Security. Mr Mason says. No doubt after the manner in which they contributed to the National Security tax. Farmers and business people had to pay their tax over again for nine months, while workers escaped, and then the employers had to pay their tax also by the increase in wages. This is contributing to Social Security with a vengeance.

Mr Mason's interest in our soldiers is as it should be. Nothing is too good for the men who daily risk their lives for us and receive 7s a day, while wharf labourers, for whom they are fighting, have refused to load their kits at 10s an hour, and the Minister of Labour takes off his hat to them for so doing. Mr Savage, however, disagreed with Mr Mason's views, for he said that a soldier was not entitled to greater consideration than anyone else. No doubt Messrs Semple and Webb, judged by their contributions to the last war. also hold this view. Mr Mason will not dispute the facts I have quoted, for he cannot. —I am. etc..

J. J. Nyhon.