Evening star., 1948-09-28
For a Practical Health Program

TO the Ealtor OF Inc Guar.
Intrude the subject "socialized medicine" In
a debate among doctors, and they loose their
habitual objectivity. Like the epithet "scab"
is guaranteed unfavorably to PREJUDICE any
health security insurance proposal.
The Stars trenchant editorial on "The Doc
tors, Dilemma" performs much needed serv-
ice for the medical profession. In friendly
fashion, 1t permits us to see ourselves as others
see us. Though it is our business to diagnose
and heal the ills of others, we resent having
the roles reversed. But as a respected expert
In public relations and social evolution The
Star warns us to pause and reorient. We are
headed for avoidable discontinue.
This provocative editorial was occasioned by
the worrietd query of keen lay-observer and
analyst of the medical scene. Writing in
our local medical publication, the Medical
Annals of the District Of Columbia, he asks:
"Will Governor Dewey remain unaffected by
the views of his running mater"
Though they are political opponents, Presi-
dent Truman and Governor Earl Warren are
on record as favoring compulsory health in
surance. But Governor Dewey emphatically
has said: Compulsory socialized medicine
is no good. Then despite this seeming con-
tradiction all three agree they want no parts
of socialized medicine.
The Star and the writer in the Medical An
mails propose to resolve this political paradox
by having doctors agree on precise definition
of "socialized medicine" Unless we do, The
Star warns that debt-crushed public in des-
perate need of financial relief from the bank
rupting costs Of health hazards, may define
it for us. And its definition may not be to
our liking.
Obviously debating minds only can meet by
using the same yardstick. That yardstick
in the present instance must possess precise
social and economic values capable OF stan
dardizing a workable national health security
program. The point Is: Will agreement on
a definition of socialized medicine provide such
yardstick?
The Illustration and fratricide of the last
decade would incline one to believe to the
contrary. We have wasted valuable time and
opportunity bitterly protesting that which
all agree we do not want. I'VE do not want
Specialized medicine" Why not facilitate q
meeting Of minds by afirmatively and pre-
cisely defining what we do want? Concen-
trate on fruitful areas Of agreement and ignore
the discarded and unwanted. In other words
forget "socialized medicine" and concentrate
the indivisible unity of pragmatic altruism on
Already we have made marvellous progress to
this end As Mrs. Agnes E. Meyer so succinctly
has stated: 1.-The success of the National
Health Assembly was triumph of democratic
process over tensions that appeared to be in
soluable."
At MIA it unanimously was agreed that our
health security program should be national
in character that it should be financed by
the solvent principle Of contributory insurance;
and that its administration must conform to
patterns of community need and the free
choice and preference of the individual patient
and doctor.
This means q practical health security pro-
gram should provide character-building self
help for all rather than indulgent paternalism
for the few. 1t means that both fair costs and
adequate benefits will be determined by mathe-
mates rather than political preference and
patronage. But most important OF all it
means that our Nation agrees we are our
brothers keeper. The common burden is light
ened by spreading 1t to the willing shoulders
of all To the superior mind and the unsur-
passed productivity Of competitive capitalism
we add the understanding heart of dependable
social justic Communism has no chance
against capitalism with an alert, unselfish
social conscience.
THOMAS E. MATTINGLY, M. D.