100) 
MAJORITY REPORT. 
RE I 3 ~ 
benefits to which members of different Societies are entitled, 
and it is contended that these Inequalities are too great to be 
defensible in a State scheme of insurance based on compulsory 
contributions at a uniform rate. Thig result has been claimed, 
however, by others as an advantage of the system, in that it 
enables the insured to group themselves in such a way as to 
secure the maximum advantage from their contributions and so 
to neutralise whatever inequity would result from the applica- 
tion of a flat-rate contribution to all insured persons, regardless 
of the variations in their several risks as affected by occupation 
or environment, or in their economic condition either as classes 
or individuals. The Act contemplated the free formation of 
Societies empowered to recruit their membership on any basis 
they might see fit to adopt. In the result a considerable process 
of segregation took place, so that there are few Societies which 
can be regarded as being in any way microcosms of the insured 
population as a whole. Those which are predominantly built 
ub. on an occupational basis must inevitably reflect the health 
risks of the trade concerned: those whose membership is pre- 
dominantly centred in certain areas must be affected by the 
relative healthiness or unhealthiness of the districts in which the 
bulk of their members are to be found. And it follows by an 
extension of the same reasoning, that even when a Society 
ostensibly opens its membership to all without distinction, it 
may be far from representing a fair sample of the population 
taken as a whole. Such a Society may be stronger in one part 
of the country than in another ; even if its membership be spread 
over the whole country, it may not be uniformly strong as between 
urban and rural areas, or as between manual and non-manual 
workers. As a consequence the Approved Society system is 
made. up of Societies resting on a segregation, conscious or 
unconscious, of members of varying health experience and health 
prospects. And as the criticism is most pointedly put, the system 
is accused of giving additional benefits both in cash and kind 
to those who having the best health experience require these 
things least, while withholding them from those whose needs 
have been shown to be sorest. The Scottish Miners’ Federation, 
for instance, say that *‘ no one marvels at the volume of pardon- 
able misunderstanding and personal resentment of the insured 
person regarding the provision of additional benefits, He never 
can grasp the justice of an arrangement that gives 15s. worth 
of sickness benefit a week in one Society and 20s. a week in 
some other Society for the flat contribution of 10d. a week. 
. . He regards the question as incapable of intelligent 
explanation and despairingly concludes that these disparities are 
nothing more or less than the product of an invisible evil genius 
entertainingly piling up an insoluble insurance puzzle >’ (App. X, 
14). Mr. Alban Gordon states that * it is against the public 
interest that a member of Society A should receive far greater