WI

uathe


es,
33 ;
of
sts

ern

ululd

sth

me

are

est
he

ny
set
he
he
we

he

al

mrht


es,
be

ly,

re,

on
ald

es,
me
nd
nit

-
sfits

MAJORITY REPORT.

117

we think, entitle critics of the existing Scheme to contend that
it should contain these features which, as some consider, the
word ‘‘ national ”’ connotes. On a consideration of the word
““ national,” as ordinarily used in countless expressions (such
as the National Debt, the National Forces and similar phrases),
it is obvious that whatever the word may mean, it does not
necessarily imply equality either of enjoyment or of burden as
between the various individuals within the nation. The merest
glance at the provisions of the Act suffices to show that whatever
theories inspired the framers of the Act of 1911, they did not intend
 to establish a scheme of that comprehensiveness and uniformity
 which it is sometimes suggested a national scheme should
show. In the first place, the Scheme by no means included the
whole population ; secondly, and more particularly at the outset,
there was a large measure of differentiation between the treatment
accorded to the different classes who were brought within the
Scheme; thirdly, without descending into the turbid and acrimonious
 disputes of 1911, it is clear, alike from the provisions
of the Act and the debates on the Bill, that it was contemplated
that different rates of benefit would emerge. Despite the title
of the Act of 1911, that Act did not set up and was not designed
to set up a ** national scheme *’ in the sense sometimes attributed
to that phrase. In the description of the Act, which is more
Important than its short title, it is properly referred to as ‘‘ an
Act to provide for insurance against loss of health and for the
prevention and cure of sickness,”’ but there is no a priori reason
why an Act to promote these ends should in the common phrase
““ treat all alike,” in the sense of guaranteeing a uniform rate
of benefit for a uniform rate of contribution. In any event, the
scheme of Health Insurance contemplated in 1911 was only a
national scheme in the sense that the State undertook to enforce
the payment of contributions in respect of those to whom the
Act applied. It was thus a State scheme which relied for its
fulfilment on voluntary effort, and which in intention was careful
to make the utmost use of voluntary and competing organisations
 already in the field. On a survey of the present position
it may appear to some arguable that a different scheme should
be established now, but it is not, we think, permissible to base
such an argument on a supposed conflict between the ‘“ national *’
promise of 1911, and the subsequent failure to realise these
earlier ideals.

be
ich

HIM
ral
wd

be
ne

\n-\ct

ot,

THE SUGGESTION OF TERRITORIAL SOCIETIES.

251. Several witnesses suggested, as a solution of the inequalities
 arising under the Approved Society system in its present form,
that it should be replaced by a system of Societies on a territorial
basis as, for example, by forming a Society in each County and
County Borough in which all insured persons resident in the
area would be included (Gordon, App. XIII, 20; Q. 7502). Such
ET

RB

1709