The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1944-03-17

as a benefit services from a physician
shall be permitted to select, from
among those designated in Paragraph
| ID of this section, those from whom
| he shall receive such services, ex
cept specialist services, subject to the
consent of the practitioner selected
and to change such selection in ac
cordance with such rules and regula-
tons as may be prescribed. Unquote.
When anyone attempts to tell you that
some bureaucrat or politician is going
to select your doctor for you, ask them
to show you anything in the bill that
even infers that anyone will make a
selection for you. The bill as quoted
above specifically specifies that you
select your own doctor, of course, if
the doctor you select refuses to serve
you, there is no provision to force him
to serve you any more than there is
such a provision now. Even in the
event the doctor you select refuses
to serve you, just as they are priv
ileged to do now, you still are free
to select another doctor of your own
choosing.
Taking issue with the American
Medical Associations opposition to
the Wagner-Murray bill, the general
principals of the medical and hospi-
talization provisions of the bill were
approved by the Physicians Forum,
a national organization with a mem
bership of more than $50 physicians
of highest rank in professional attain
ment, founded in 1889 to study med
ical care. The basic concept of the
bill should not only be accepted, but
actively supported by all physicians,
the Physicians Forum declared. This
concept is that sickness has profound
economic and social consequences and
that measures for it's prevention and
treatment are therefore the concern
of the entire community as we'll as
of the doctors.
The bill comes to grips with the
issue of economics which
is at the core of the entire problem
of improving distribution of medical
service. Recognizing that scientific
advances have so increased the costs
of modern medical care that it is be-
yond the reach of most people, the
authors of the bill rightly declare that
only through compulsory health in
costs be met Compulsory federal
health insurance through social secur-
ity payments is at present the most
practical and soundest financial meth
cd of assuring in democratic fashion, |
the greatest medical benefits to the |
greatest number of people. This in
surance provides that all but the COM
Dletely INDECENT, will receive medical |
services not as a charity, but as a |
right for which they have individually |
contributed. This likewise assures |
doctors of payment for all their serv-
ces, thereby raising the general level |
Of the physicians income. Federal |
Insurance funds are allocated for med
cal research, neducation, and post
graduate study, the benefits of which |
will rebound to the advantage of the
people whose contributions make this
possible. Medical standards will be
raised through the formu-
alton of policy on national basis.
rhe provision for scientific study of
of medical services marks
| notable advance in legislative. rec
How many of you listeners tonight
re taking some form of patent medi-
line because you think it helps some
hronic or acute ailment you may
AVE. Why don't you see a doctor
nd have complete diagnosis made
nd treatment prescribed? 1t is the
anne old story, you, like many others,
% on hoping from day to day that
he patent medicine will have the de-
ired results, or at least keep you
DING until you can afford profession
j medical care How many of you
re still paying on a doctor bill, that
t one time seemed to have you hope
essly in debt. Think it over, the
VagnerMurray bill provides insur-
nee that budgets your doctor bill
yer periods when you are working
nd provides an income when you are
ut of job or sick. Insurance mind
on, not charity, but insurance, just
5 any other insurance. | am sure
:, state, and federal government for
lief, medical care, and hospitaliza-
on, and then consider what it cost
lsiness. and professional men in bad
lis, which they had to charge off as
ses because workers were unem-
Dyed and had no income during the 4
st depression, and then consider the c
siness failures, the lost homes with
) attendant liquidation of life saw
gs of many, the cost of the opera s
IN of the WagnerMurray bill will &
insignificant by comparison. 1t s
)uld seem then, that the issue before &
in considering social legislation 81
oh as the Wagner-Murray bill, is &
lether we want to prepare in time a
plenty, an orderly means of pro- s
ling for emergencies, or do we want q
wait until an emergency is upon s.
and then adopt inefficient, costly, q
nporary methods of dishing out s
arity to those unfortunate enough q
be without a job or income. The 81
nerican people want insurance, not
arity, the Wagner-Murray bill is So q
il security insurance. 8