The People's Health
1943-10 1943 1940s 36 pages BEVERIDGE. It may be that lots of people feel that Beveridge supplies the way or the means to the end they are seeking. It may be that Beveridge will supply some improvement, but I cannot and do not, accept the Beveridge Plan as being anything like adequate. Nor is the Be...
| Institution: | MCR - The Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick |
|---|---|
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
Newcastle-on-Tyne : North-East District Committee, Communist Party
1943
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10796/D27DFEF9-45AB-4B3C-B556-600C6B5F987D http://hdl.handle.net/10796/274E33AC-E058-43E9-95F4-37E11A30CC9D |
| Summary: | 1943-10
1943
1940s
36 pages
BEVERIDGE. It may be that lots of people feel that Beveridge supplies the way or the means to the end they are seeking. It may be that Beveridge will supply some improvement, but I cannot and do not, accept the Beveridge Plan as being anything like adequate. Nor is the Beveridge Plan anything new. Some people are under the impression that Sir William Beveridge has just recently come to the conclusions stated in his report. But Sir William Beveridge submitted exactly the same sort of scheme through the Liberal Party in the 1920's for the unification of National Health contributions and Benefits as he is doing today. At that time his scheme was completely rejected by the Labour Movement. I must say the Labour Movement was wise then. I would like to divert from my main theme for a moment. In 1943 we have had a Means Test Act. Many of the Labour members of the House of Commons were very dissatisfied with this 1943 Means Test Act, but they were informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was all part of the Beveridge Plan. This was the first instalment. Granted the Beveridge Plan does provide a money standard but it is a money standard which need not necessarily mean an increase in the standard of living. It's on these points I disagree with the Communist Party and the Labour Party. It is neither Socialism nor yet a step in the direction of Socialism. What I do say to the Labour Movement in this connection is we want more unity of policy and of action. THE GENERAL PRACTITIONER. But let me refer myself more directly to the medical services. Let us look at the general practitioner, because it is he whom the working man or woman regards as their doctor. At one time the general practitioner was a student, and I expect, had certain aspirations. I believe on the whole they are decent fellows. But once he has got a practice all his aspirations are knocked out of him. Often the practice is built on mortgage and his one thought is to pay off that mortgage and the more he gets on his panel the sooner he will pay it off. Hygiene is an elementary need for good health, but if you have seen some of the general practitioners' surgeries that I have been inside, you will have noticed that hygiene is often one of the things missing. If a patient is seriously ill, the general practitioner arranges for him to see a specialist, but if the patient is really sick and cannot afford the specialists' fee then the present system says he must go to the Public Assistance Committee. There it is arranged for him to be examined by a Medical Officer who is already overworked and running a private practice. He is often described as the "Parish Doctor" — not an inapt description. Then again, the patient while ill, and away from work, must secure some means of subsistence. Today the Public Assistance Committee supplies it. In some cases a Social Welfare Committee attends to him. The ideas of the members of these committees are socially limited by law and by the members' own parochial outlook. I attended a meeting 22
15X/2/103/295 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |