MAJORITY REPORT.

of improving the national health is to raise the national
standard of living—that is to raise real wages.’

21. It is perhaps permissible to concede the importance of
the main consideration emphasised by Dr. Baskett without in
fact admitting that it is relevant to the propriety of a system
of insurance. Iti may cogently be argued that the general
standard of living, of comfort and of well-being has a supreme
influence on the health of the country ; it does not follow that at
any given stage a system of health insurance may not he
expedient as machinery to obtain the best results in given
conditions, nor can it be logically suggested that the existence
of a health insurance scheme implies the denial of other methods
of improving the health of the community. The observations of
the British Medical Association are substantially, as it appears
to us, directed to the same point. There are, it is true, many
things, such as housing, town planning, smoke abatement and
pure milk, which equally with medical attendance are essential
to the public health. They are adjuncts to each other
(Q. 14,7969). Given ‘‘an immense sum of money,”
(Q. 14,805), it might conceivably be spent more advantageously,
 it is suggested, on certain of these essential
adjuncts of medical service. We thus read the British Medical
Association’s evidence as a useful reminder that medical
attendance is not in itself all that is necessary, not as implying
any fundamental criticism of medical benefit as now provided.
Mention may also be made of Iit.-Colonel Bickerton-Edwards
(Appendix LII) and Dr. Milson Russen Rhodes (Appendix
CXXI), who criticised the scheme on fundamental matters on
its health side, the latter indeed going so far as to recommend
a State medical service of salaried practitioners. Other witnesses,
in their criticism, suggested such extensions of the Scheme in
one direction or other, as would have rendered the insurance basis
no longer appropriate.

22. In contrast to the paucity of evidence directed against the
general principles of the present Scheme, we received from many
different quarters a large volume of evidence in its favour,
testifying to the advantages in health and social security which
had been derived under it. For instance, the British Medical
Association said that ‘‘ the evidence as to the incidence of
sickness benefit does point to the fact that the Scheme itself has
almost certainly reduced national sickness, and we are quite sure
that if the immense gain to national health includes immense
gain to the comfort of the individual in knowing that he can
have medical attention whenever he needs it, the gain is most
marked; . . . .”’ (Q. 14,618). Witnesses appearing on behalf of
the Ministry of Health stated that ‘‘ medically the Insurance
Acts have educated the population.”” (Brock Q. 23,852.) *‘ It