WI 
ua- 
the 
es, 
33 ; 
of 
sts 
ern 
ul- 
uld 
sth 
me 
are 
est 
he 
ny 
set 
he 
he 
we 
he 
al 
m- 
rht 
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 in- 
tend to establish a scheme of that comprehensiveness and uni- 
formity 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 acri- 
monious 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 organisa- 
tions 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 inequali- 
ties 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