July 28 1962


July 28 1962


Premier Lloyd and some others wage the medicare war New answers to the old problem of disciplining kids

Two errors of fact appeared in Ralph Allen's special report on Saskatchewan (There's more fury than sense in the medical care war, June 16). The first is the statement that under the medical care plan "the doctors will bill the government for 85 percent of their bills to patients under the schedule of fees set by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If the patient is solvent, the doctor will try to collect the rest from him.” This is incorrect. The medical care insurance act provides that the patient will be billed for extra charges only when he visits a specialist without being referred by his family doctor. There is also no differentiation between patients who are or are not financially solvent. After July 1 the government's payment of 85 percent of the fee schedule of the College of Physicians and Surgeons will be considered payment in full just as the 85 percent paid by private health schemes is now considered payment in full. The other error is less important. 1 was, in fact, informed ahead of time of the kind of reception 1 would get from the Regina meeting of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. This reception resulted not because my speech was read prior to the meeting by anyone, friend or otherwise. The reception had all the earmarks of having been carefully and deliberately prearranged without any reference whatever to what I had to say later that morning. — w. s. I.LOYD, PREMIER OF SASKATCHEWAN

^ The tragedy of the whole situation is that everyone wants to attain the same objective — the improvement of medical care — but emotions and politics have been allowed to get the better of everyone’s sense of reason and perspective on this issue ... —•


^ One fundamental objection of many people to the compulsory Medical Care Plan in Saskatchewan is that it greatly enlarges an already vast bureaucracy. - DONALD A. BOWMAN,


Memories of the Tropic Sea

Those of us who were formerly acquainted with the old “St. Heliers” were pleased and amused with Ken Lefolii’s story, The slapstick saga of the SS Tropic Sea (May 19) covering the latest adventures of the ship under her present name. The old “Saint” as we called her, was originally built as a seagoing tug during World War I, to help clear the southwesterly approaches to England of floating derelicts and stranded hulls after naval and submarine attacks had taken their toll of commercial shipping. These tugs were good ships and did a magnificent job of the work for which they were designed, but, with the coming of peace they were out of place. The “St. Heliers” ended up in New Orleans, gathering rust. Tater she was brought up to Canada, lengthened by fifty feet by cutting her in two and

inserting a section between the forecastle and bridge, and converted to a buoy tender and lighthouse supply ship. The second-last time 1 saw the St. Heliers she was “tied to the wall” down in Wallaceburg. and 1 stopped to look her over and say goodbye, for I thought her next stop would be the boneyard. Then 1 saw her at Toronto Dry Dock being readied for this new venture in the tropic seas. I tried to tell Captain Stewart that the “horse collars” in the Scotch boiler would be hound to spring a leak about the time they reached salt water, hut his enthusiasm was so great it seemed that it might even be enough to carry the old ship through another few thousand miles along the sea lanes. But that was not to be. Amos Rothe, one of the old hands in the engine room when she was with us at the Parry Sound Marine Agency, went with her as Chief Engineer on the run down to Nassau and Miami, and later

told me she behaved very well once she reached salt water again. The old girl was back in her element and the added buoyancy of the sea water made her ride the waves like a duck; but her boilers were worn out. — F. K.


The case against I>r. Bernhardt

In “The case for taking children away from their parents,” (June 16), Dr. Bernhardt’s statement, “We must recognize that corporal punishment is not only useless but wrong,” recalled a discussion I had a few years ago with a sister-in-law. She asked me if 1 thought parents should spank their children. “Heavens, no!” I told her. “We're middle class now. If the kids do something wrong, 1 just go upstairs and break a couple of their favorite toys.” Current attitudes toward corporal punishment (at times carried pretty close to the ludicrous position of no punishment at all) have invaded our educational system, too. I feel we should not only give our teachers more pay (to ensure a continuing supply of good people) but even more important we should also have the decency to grant the teacher as much latitude as we, as parents, need in our joint effort of bringing up our children. —


^ The normal home is the one where a child does get an occasional cuff around the ear and sometimes for no better reason than mother's tiredness or father’s bad temper ... — MRS. THELMA HOP WOOD, OTTAWA. ★