HEALTH INSURANCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 135, 9 June 1937, Page 7

HEALTH INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT’S SCHEME Cost Estimated at 3J Millions INCOME TAX OF 7d IN THE POUND FIGURES BEING DISCUSSED ( Per Press Abuociation. ] CHRISTCHURCH, June 8. I The cost of the national head II insurance scheme contemplated by the Government is estimated at £3,500,000 a year, according to figures at present being discussed. This would be equivalent to a tax on wages and income other than wages of about 7d in the pound. The Government's tentative proposal is to pay £1 per head of population for medical services. The population of New Zealand, including Maoris, at the last census was rather over 1,500,000. If the whole population were distributed among medical practitioners, each practitioner having his own list, there would remain a sum in the vicinity of £2,000,000 for extra services. It is believed that the proposal included free medical and nursing service in maternity cases involving from £l5 to £2O in each case. This would involve an additional £500,000 approximately. The fund would provide also for special hospital attention, travelling expenses of doctors and patients, and special payments of hospital staffs. The proposal to pay doctors at the rate of £1 per head is described as a retainer system. Presumably payment would be made to doctors for materials used, which would be absolutely free to patients. The patient who required the attention of a specialist, however, would have to pay for his services as at present. A patient seeking the attendance of a doctor other than a panel doctor would pay as at present. PRINCIPLE SUPPORTED FARMERS’ UNION VIEW SPEECH BY MR MULHOLLAND I Per Frew Allocation. ) DUNEDIN, June 8. At the annual meeting of the Otago branch of the New Zealand Farmins' Union to-day the president of tne New Zealand Union, Mr Mulhollana, said that the New Zealand Union supported a scheme of national health insurance, because it felt that such a scheme would improve the health of the community, remove a constant anxiety from thousands of breadwinners and tend to incituue the happiness and also the economic value of the individual by removing one of the great deterrents to obtaining early medical advice in case ot suspected trouble. There had been assurance that a Bill providing lor a scheme would be brought down next session. The union would support the principle but the details would have to oe watched very carefully. It could be enacted to increase or relieve very considerably the charges on the community. The union s principle was that the individual should be responsible for the charges incidental to his insurance. There had to be a personal contribution on the basis of personal income. Any other basis would necessarily mean increased charges and increased costs. “The other big danger is that th« scheme might be mane to include a lot of frills. All benefits are desirable enough, but not necessary,” he continued. “It is easy to overload a scheme of this type so that it becomes a burden on the community. It will have to be closely watched and the union intends to go that and to give as much advice and assistance as it can.”