OCR Text |
Show Election Issue Revisited Medicare Over the past few months much has been said concerning con-cerning the function of government in our society and from the contest of opinion over this matter there has emerged a latitude compliant with individual interpretation. interpre-tation. However it could be offered, in a general sense, that in our republican system the charge of government is that of interpreting the will of the people and upon interpretation enacting that will. It follows that those in public office should reflect in their policy and endeavor en-deavor the desire of those whom they represent. One issue to which many public officials have given increasing attention is that of medical care for the aged. While this issue has been championed on all fronts of political representation it also receives support in public pub-lic will and nourishment from governmental interpretation interpreta-tion of that will. Although it is recognized that there is much sentiment opposing this movement the fact that it exists and advocates change opens a question of placement of responsibility for this present desire of greater government influence. There is in opposition to medical care for the aged a vociferate and articulate faction headed by the American Ameri-can Medical Association and those in sentiment with the association. The AMA has elucidated the danger and harm that would result from any effort on the part of government to operate in this area heretofore free of government function. It has been argued that intervention inter-vention would lead to greater intervention and such would eventually lead to a decline in an excellent medical med-ical system. While these viewpoints are well taken they do not lend to understanding nor account for responsibility responsi-bility for the growth of public sentiment favoring the movements of government in the area of medical care for aged. Much of this responsibility must rest upon the shoulders of the medical fraternity itjelf and the policies poli-cies it has pursued. Medicine represents a system free from the normal competitive restrictions placed upon the greater part of our society. Historically when a situation sit-uation has arisen in which an individual or a group of individuals have arrived at a position that they are able :o deny competition and have used this position to ibuse public interest it has been public will which has .nvited the intervention of government to thwart this abuse. Herein the intention is not to suggest a repetition of historical fact rather the suggestion is repeated that government intent mirrors public sentiment. Would it not be well that while making known its resentment of government intervention that the medical profession consider if the intent of government might not be prompted by public desire? And might it not follow that public desire is, in part, an innuendo of medical policies? |