Snt,—Surely Mr. P. E. Roberts is wrong in considering the
question "Can we afford the Beveridge Scheme?," simply in terms of money. If we could, indeed, do so it would be fair to take Sir Farquhar Buzzard's figure of L300,000,000, which sickness and disability are estimated to cost the country every year, and to set it against the Lzso,000,000 of the Beveridge Scheme. For purposes of argument we may assume that the Beveridge Scheme would lead to a one-third improvement in the national health. In terms of nioney we could then say that the net annual cost of the Beveridge Scheme would be only Li so,000,000. The argument would, of course, be' entirely misleading.
The absurdity of considering this problem merely in terms of money is also apparent if we apply the concept of " affording " to different commodities. If the amount of, say, petrol in this country is valued at Lx we cannot afford to spend more than Lx on petrol. But we might well afford to spend more than Lx on coal or potatoes. It would seem that before we begin to discuss the question of whether we can afford the Beveridge Scheme we must agree on the meaning of the word " afford " in relation to public expenditure.—Yours faithfully, Hawkhurst, Lower Shiplake, Oxon. F. B. ADCIN-SNEATH.
Previous page
