HOSPITAL LEVIES

Hokitika Guardian, 14 May 1921, Page 1

HOSPITAL LEVIES

THE FARMERS’ VIEW POINT. (From Farmers’ Union Advocate). At the present time the Hospital Boards of the Dominion have sent out notices to the various contributing bodies as to the amount, by way of levy, which they will have to pay for the management and expenses of the hospital of their district. In many cases the amount came as a shock to most, and especially to the contributing counties. The cost of living, including coal, lias, of course, increased the cost of maintenance, and wages have risen. This is beyond the control of the boards. The demands of the public have increased. The advance in

surgery and in medicine has called for additional service by way of electrical appliances, which lias had to he provided for. In some cases, the rate of subsidy has been lowered according to the schedule in the Act, which is on a sliding scale; so that when the land valuations go up the rate of subsidy goes down. The excessive amounts counties have to pay lias brought about a discussion as to the principle upon which tlu> amounts payable are based. Almost entirely tho basis is the valuation of the land. Ratepayers in the counties are asking why there should be additional taxation placed upon the land for hospital purposes. Tiiis has been accepted for many years, but now the ratepayers are realising that it is nn unjust basis.

The reason why hospitals are kept up is to cure the sick and look alter t ie aged and needy. Apart from the humanitarian point of view, the State realises that a sick man, woman or child is a bad asset, and wants the man who will produce the most, —the woman to do her part and so manage her household that the children will grow up strong and useful to take their part as citizens. How far we had succeeded in tiiis direction was evidenced by the number of rejects when our young men were examined for active service. As an investment for the State, it pays to provide means to restore people to health. This is apart from the natural desire of all people, especially those in health, to help those not so fortunately situated. How far it is permissible to iuterefere with the individual in connection with marriage is a matter which lias never been lefinitely settled hv us as a nation. Wc take steps to see that those who suffer from an infectious disease shall not he allowed to spread it, but we take few steps to see that young people are fit to marry. There are others: degenerates are allowed to have families the lives of which, having been traced, show that many of them become a burden of the State in some torm or other.

All this is, 'however, a State matter, and has no connection with the land, except, perhaps, that those who live and have their being on the land arc much more likely to he strong and healthy than the town-dwellers. The question of the health of the people is clearly a matter for the State. When it comes to the aged, the case is not quite so strong. True, the State provides for them an old-age pension, thus recognising that the State should provide for those of the aged who have not been able to make provision for themselves, though in many cases such provision could have been made if thrift had been exercised. Thrift, however, is largely a thing of the past, and is not encouraged by the State. The Hospital and Charitable Aid Act does not make the State solely responsible for the health of the people. The Act said, when it was first passed, that the State would pay half and the ratepayers the other half. Why the ratepayers should be specially mulcted and not the general public was never explained, but Parliament, which is never averse to put fresh burdens upon the land, accepted it, and no objection was raised. Later on, however, the Department invented a very ingenious process by which it had to pay much less. A schedule, was passed by the House making a sliding scale the means of ascertaining how much the State should pay and the ratepayers’ share. The lowest rate for the State to pay was 12s 3d for every Cl raised by the ratepayers. As time went on the ratepayers, because of having the valuation of their land raised, had to receive less and less from the State ; so that the Department, instead of paying Cl for Cl, as the Act originally promised, saved about Cl of), 0(H) per annum by this ingenious process, and, perforce, the ratepayeis as a whole had to find this further amount for the maintenance of the hospitals. This became so intolerable, and so much objection was raised to it that the Department took steps to alter the schedule, and presented a scheme to do this to the Conference of Hospital Boards, held last year. There was this difference that the Department suggested, that the State should provide’ Cl for Cl raised by the ratepayers, but that in some instances the amount of subsidy should be as high as 28s and to others the subsidy might be 12s. A statement was prepared showing that 23 Hospital Boards would get £1 or over, and to make up for this 17 boards would receive less that £l. That is, the ratepayers of 17 hospital districts will be taxed more heavily to subsidise 23 other districts.

It is well to enquire into the difference between town and country. It may lie argued that every man who rents a house pays rates because the ront includes rates, and if these are higher, it is charged in the rents. This may to some extent by true in towns, but not in the country, where the ratepayers live in their own houses, which, as the levy is made on the capital value, the value of his house is included in the taxation value. At a recent meeting it was shown, in the case of one district where the number of patients was taken, that in the counties the cost per patient sent in to the hospital from each contributory, body .was, in the

counties, from £l] per head to £SB. The boroughs therein (as the number of patients were much larger) showed a cost of from £2 to £4 per patient. If tiiis shows tho diffeernce, ' then the ratepayers in the counties are taxed to pay for the patients in towns. It is well to note, also, that the great majority of the ratepayers in the counties do not gain any benefit from the hospital, for they are either attended in their homes by the resident practitioners or, as a rule, go into a private hospital if they require surgical attention. Where, then, the schedule rate is going to tax one set of ratepayers to relieve others in another district, there is naturally an emphatic protest against it. Shakespeare tells us that mercy “is twice bless’d: it blessetli him who gives and him that takes;” hut when it conies to hard cash and taxation, the blessing is objected to by “him who gives,” for not only does, lie pay for others, but also, as a taxpayer to the State, lie pays his share of the subsidy given by the State; so lie is taxed twice for tho same object. The ideal system is, of course, that every one should pay some contribution for the upkeep of hospitals, lnit there is an objection to that because of the difficulty of collection ; yet it is not insuperable, for it could lie collected by way of stamps through the Post Office, but that is not likely to be adopted. The ratepayers generally resent their being singled out to pay for the upkeep of the hospitals, but they have suffered it in the past. If, however, the proposed schedule is adopted, there will he an outcry from every ratepayer who suffers the injustice which must arise under it.