Report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1740277147

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-132094

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance

Place of publication:: London

Publisher:: Stationery Office

Year of publication:: 1926

Scope:: XII, 394 S.

Digitisation:: 2020

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Chapter III. The general attitude to the health insurance scheme

Collection:: Economics Books

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 advan- tageously, 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

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation