THE WAGE-EARNER'S TEETH
Sta,—The letter from Mr. G. Wray in The Spectator of May 15th seems to require an answer. Has the writer even taken the trouble to get at some of the facts about N.H. Insurance?
It is true that dental benefit is not secured to the insured person as a statutory right. That, however, is not the fault of the friendly societies, but of the Legislature who framed the Act. It is to the credit of the friendly societies through whom the Act is administered that practically all of them do give dental benefit, and in addition optical benefit and convalescent home treatment. They have been enabled to give these extra benefits owing to the care with which they have administered the funds entrusted to them. Most of them allow also a higher rate of sick pay than the Act provides for. It is a gross libel on these societies to describe them as "weak and expensively administered " even though the Economist is cited in support of this statement. If they had been extrava- gant in their working costs they would never have been able to give the benefits which they do give to their members. How can Mr. Wray describe N.H.I. as being administered through " vested financial interests "? Only so far as N.H.I. is administered through insurance companies can such a charge be proved to be in theory even partially true. Insurance companies are, of course, carried on for profit, other- wise how could they give the benefits they do to their policyholders, whereas friendly societies who were formed for the express purpose of
insuring their members against sickness are not carried on for profit, except in so far as any profit goes to the mutual benefit of the insured person. There are no shareholders as such in any friendly society, and upon examination it will be found that their administration costs of the N.H. Insurance Act have been on a very low percentage, while the benefits they give to their members are as high as it is possible to give. Costs of administration may be higher where it is done through the insurance companies, who should not have been allowed to administer an Act which deals with sickness benefit-, a totally different matter to insurance against fire, death or accident.—I am, Sir, yours, W. H. H. C.
Previous page
