HOSPITAL SYSTEM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 136, 9 May 1940, Page 10

HOSPITAL SYSTEM.

NATIONALISATION ISSUE. PROPOSAL DISCUSSED. A remit submitted by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, that the whole cost of hospital administration should be borne by the State and made a charge on the Social Security Fund came in for discussion at a meeting of the Palmerston North Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday. Mr J. A. Nash, who Is chairman ol the Palmerston North Hospital Board, said that when the question'oi removing taxation from tho land was considered it was argued thus there was greater hospital expenditure on the city people than on country residents. In times of depression people went from the land to the cities and hospital expenditure increased. At present the cost of maintaining patients in hospital was about 18s to 20s per patient per day. The Government was responsible for half file maintenance and the Hospital Board got 6s from the Social Security Fund. Whether that allocation would remain was not known.

Mr Nash maintained that since the Palmerston North Hospital Board had taken over the Otaki Sanatorium from the Government great savings had been effected for the Government ana the country. The board, he suggested, was more "careful regarding expenditure. If the proposal were supported the wliolo cost would come from the Consolidated Fund or the Social Security Fund—it amounted to the same thing. He considered the proposal would, lead to the nationalisation of hospitals. There would be no hospital hoards, and then tlie value of the boards in having watched the finances would be fully appreciated. If the guaranteed price to farmers continued after the war and the Government continued to control primary products it might mean that hospital expenditure would Lave to be reconsidered. He suggested the matter be held over for twelve months until it was seen how the Social Security Act was working. SCHEME SUPPORTED.

Mr M. H. Oram considered that many people objected to the present system under which hospital boards notified local bodies of tlieir contributions, which increased year by year. The individual ratepayers had no say concerning hospital expenditure. The chief argument against the removal of taxation from the land seemed to be that the purchaser would receive an advantage as there would be an increase in the capital value of the land. What was overlooked was that the increased land tax imposed by the present and other Governments decreased the value of the land. The principle of making taxation fall on the land was a relic of the English poor laws. Did we want such relics in this country? The main argument of those who said increased social security tax should provide hospital expenditure was this; Social security affected everybody, especially those who used hospitals. That would spread the burden more equitably than under tlie present system. If the farmer received more for his primary produce, then he would pay more in social security tax. The speaker agreed that the position should be investigated later when the social security scheme had been tested. He was not in favour of nationalisation generally, but he was convinced it was equitable regarding hospitals as the burden pressed equally on all. On Mr Nash’s motion it was decided to inform the Associated Chambers of Commerce that in the chamber’s opinion it was not advisable to consider the question of hospital administration and taxation for at least 12 months, when the Social Security Act would have been given a trial.