This, of course, is what the West Virginia Medical Association wants. Taking its cue from the American Medical Association, it has opposed the social secu-rity plan in every conceivable way. The big trouble with such a position, as we have said earlier, is that it ignores the practical fact that medical care for the aged cannot long be supported through direct taxation. Social security where the individual would pay for his care in his unproductive years while he is still productive, is the only solution for financing on a permanent basis. When the present program was passed last October, the financing plan adopted was a temporary expedient. Governor Underwood recommended a shift of funds from other purposes to carry the program until March of this year, and the legislature gladly acquiesced. The 6-month plan was calculated to coincide with action in Washington on the social security proposal. At that time congressional leaders were confident they would have all the support they needed to make the shift from general taxation to social security within 2 months after Congress convened in January. When it was realized early this year that the social security bill was in trouble, the legislature decided to continue the program in the old form until January of next year. Aged care as a public service had been so slow getting off the ground that much of what was appropriated in October was still available. With this backlog of funds, plus an additional appropriation of $1,325,256, it was believed that West Virginia would have enough money to last through December. The Federal Government pays 70 percent of the cost. But the situation has changed radically since the legislature went home in March. Medical care costs have skyrocketed. Where they were running at $153,867 when the legislative decision on anticipated need was made in February, they were running at $391,859 last month. State Welfare Director W. Bernard Smith is indeed worried. There is no longer any cushion to carry the program past December 31, as there was last March. As things stand now Smith either has the choice of stopping the program before the legislature gets here again to appropriate more money, or curtail services. He has discussed the problem with Governor Barron, and chances are he'll order a cutback in services very soon. He and his staff are now studying ways to reduce services without wrecking the program. And what does the future hold after next January? In event the social security proposal is again sidetracked, it is believed that West Virginia's share of the cost of aged care will run to $10 million or $12 million annually. This is a shocking prospect when you realize that the next legislature has no where to look for so much money without going through the painful process of revamping the entire tax structure. Some people talk of a severance tax or corporate income tax as possibilities for next year, but both would tax the same groups covered under the business and occupation tax and therefore would run into very stiff opposition. Also, when the legislature returns to Charleston next year, it undoubtedly will be faced with demands for higher salaries for State employees, new money for higher education and increased support for State institutions. The latter long have been neglected. Medical care for the aged, therefore, will be not a singularly important problem the 1962 legislature will have to solve to balance its budget. It will be only one of many, and may come up short in the final, hectic shifting of funds in the late hours before adjournment. And who is mainly to blame for this confusing situation? The West Virginia and American Medical Associations. They've done more than any other single group to defeat the plan that would put aged care on a financially sound basis. STATEMENT OF WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO Organized labor believes that medical care for the aged is a matter of right. The Washington State Labor Council believes that the only commonsense way to minimize the tragedy that illness imposes on elderly citizens is through the establishment of a program of health care through the time-tested social security system. This is the only method that will provide benefit as a matter of right. There will be no income or means test-no proof of poverty, no visit to the welfare office. No matter where the patient lives, benefits will be the same and he can choose his own doctor and his own hospital. Labor believes that voluntary health insurance cannot possibly do the job required to lift the crushing burden of continuing medical costs from the backs of our aged citizens. Only two out of five of our elderly people have any form of such protection and much of that is inadequate, most of it can be canceled and all of it is far too costly for those of limited income. In fact, a recent survey in the State of Washington shows that 64 percent of our people prefer the social security approach to the problem. Organized medicine, perpetually fearful for the preferred financial status enjoyed by many of its members, is waging a major propaganda campaign in an attempt to deprive social security beneficiaries of assured and adequate medical care. Old people, some doctors say, can't have this protection because it may lead to socialized medicine. There is no doubt, in any quarter, that millions of senior Americans, through no fault of their own, simply do not have the money for the medical care that their increasing years inevitably demand. Organized doctors, and we say this without malice, have done very little about this immensely serious problem in the past. Now, they apparently hope to prevent the rest of us from doing much about it in the future. Fortunately for everyone, organized doctors are not the sole custodians of social progress in the United States. Special permission from the American Medical Association is not a condition precedent to our giving social security additional meaning by including medical care within its purview. Actually, of course, the doctors would not be affected by such a program. They would still be paid for their expert services on the present basis. The high-ranking finan cial position of the profession would not be prejudiced in the slightest. It is clear that the King bill holds many answers to the problems posed by the compelling need for medical care of the aged. It is equally clear that opposition to this legislation from medical spokesmen is something less than fair and objective. This is not surprising. For years, the AMA has battled just about every progressive health insurance plan brought forth in our country. It wasn't so long ago, for example, that the AMA moguls were also condemning Blue Cross as "socialistic." Thirty-three nations around the globe sponsor national medical care programs. of one form or another, for their older citizens. The U.S.A., the richest nation of all, has none. If the AMA has its way (and it will unless ordinary citizens put an end to doctors' dictatorship in the matter of medical insurance), thousands of elderly Americans will continue to beg or borrow medical care or go without it entirely. If this is a satisfying thought to the AMA leadership, it is grossly repugnant to the average American who has had just about enough of the same old dogma about "socialized medicine." Let's hope for the sake of older people now, and in the days to come, that the AMA is not permitted to block still another attempt of the American people to solve a major health problem in a sensible and effective manner. There are approximately 280.000 persons age 65 and over in the State of Washington. Passage of the Anderson-King bill would enable 240,000 persons to receive health benefits in 1963, totaling nearly $23 million, or approximately $97 per person. In the State of Washington the average old-age benefit today is $76 per month, at a time when average hospital charges for bed and board are $23 a day in a semiprivate room. Obviously, after careful perusal of these figures, we can determine the terrific need for the additional benefits which H.R. 4222 would provide, and at the same time we can visualize the tremendous relief that would be afforded the already overtaxed public assistance rolls in the State of Washington. The medical allowances of public welfare programs have been pathetically small and in many cases overstringent qualifying regulations have limited their usefulness. Continuing unemployment intensifies the need for action since many of these older people have lost jobs, private pension rights, and any possible help from relatives who, in most cases, have felt the same pressures of a depressed economy. Finally, we believe that only the social security approach to the medical problems of the aged will safeguard their independence, their dignity and peace of mind. Furthermore, we believe that the Nation's welfare agencies, hospitals, and Blue Cross plans will be strengthened by the enactment of health benefits through social security. Attached hereto, noted as exhibit A and submitted for the record, is a copy of Resolution No. 25, adopted unanimoulsy by some 500 delegates to the fourth annual convention of the Washington State Labor Council held in Yakima, Wash., July 10-13, 1961. RESOLUTION No. 25 (Adopted by unanimous vote July 13, 1961, Fourth Annual Convention of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Yakima, Wash.) Whereas the average old-age and survivors insurance benefit for people past 65 years of age is only $74 per month in spite of improvements labor has helped obtain three out of five aged persons have an income of less than $1,000 a year; and Whereas commercial health insurance is unavailable in most cases and too expensive in any case for most of the aged; and Whereas practically no health insurance that they could possibly afford covers the long duration, very expensive catastrophic and terminal illnesses so common to our aged; and Whereas at present most States provide very meager, if any, medical assistance to the aged; and Whereas President Kennedy's health plan (the King bill, H.R. 4222) now before Congress would provide for the major hospital, nursing home, and diagnostic services required by our aged people at a cost of approximately $1 per month to each employed person covered by old-age and survivors insurance; and Whereas congressional hearings will be held soon on H.R. 4222 and every working person should let their viewpoint be known on this all-important bill to their own and their elderly relatives' welfare: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Washington State Labor Council in Convention at Yakima, Wash., on July 13, 1961, urges the prompt passage of H.R. 4222 amended so as to eliminate the deductible amounts now proposed; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each member of our congressional delegation and the President of the United States; and be it further Resolved, That each affiliated union and each union member be encouraged to also write their congressional delegation urging the prompt passage of H.R. 4222. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, VIRGINIA STATE AFL-CIO, Richmond, Va., August 17, 1961. Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I would like to file the following statement in support of the Anderson-King bill to provide medical care for the aged. Here in Virginia there are nearly 300,000 persons age 65 or over whose average monthly old-age benefits are only $65. Certainly, one must realize that $65 a month will not buy the necessities of life much less provide for medical and doctor's care in time of illness and to show that the Commonwealth of Virginia is not making the effort to provide for these citizens the record shows that the public welfare in Virginia had an expenditure of only $7 per capita while the national average was $23. With the per capital income as low as it is in this State it often makes it impossible for the relatives of the aged to give any assistance. Therefore, I know that there are many aged citizens who are in need of medical care, but have no way to obtain it. Of course, when a citizen gets far enough along with his illness there may be some charitable organization that will assist, but certainly there are too many cases for the charitable organizations to take care of all of them. According to the figures we have, if the Anderson-King bill is passed, by 1963 approximately 225,000 persons could receive health benefits at a cost of about $14 million. The support for this bill is not just the leaders of our State organization and to show this I am enclosing a copy of a resolution which was unanimously adopted at our 1960 convention. I would like to request that this resolution be made a part of this testimony. In order that our elder citizens may live the few remaining years of their lives in dignity and not have to sign a pauper's oath or make numerous applications to charitable organizations, we urgently request that the Ways and Means Committee concur in the Anderson-King bill. Sincerely yours, H. B. BOYD, President. RESOLUTION No. 16. RESOLUTION ON MEDICAL CARE FOR THE AGED Whereas we believe in the overall objective of the social security system that was stated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in these words: "I see an America where those have reached the evening of their life shall live out their years in peace, in security, where pensions and insurance shall be given as a matter of right to those who through a long life of labor have served their families and their nation so well"; and Whereas the social security system was not designed to be a frozen institution. incapable of expansion to meet broader needs than were first encompassed; and Whereas today over 11 million Americans now draw social security pensions; and Whereas the maximum Federal benefit for a retired couple is $180 a month and the average is about $114, or according to estimated figures by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, three-fifths of those persons 65 and over had incomes less than $1,000 in 1957 and only one-fifth had incomes over $2,000; and Whereas these figures leave no margin for heavy medical expenses, which have risen farther and faster than any other item in our economy; and Whereas a Federal study was made in 1957 that showed of all pensioners whe had medical expenses, only 14 percent of the couples and 9 percent of the singles persons drew any insurance benefits whatsoever; and Whereas most of the others were faced with the loss of independence or even pauperism; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this the Fifth Annual Convention of the Virginia State AFLCIO go on record in support of a medical aid bill for the aged covered under and financed through increased contributions to our social security system such as provided in the Forand bill (H.R. 4700); and be it further Resolved, That every possible means of communication be used by all our affiliated organizations and their members to inform and urge the Virginia Congressmen and U.S. Senators to vote for and to use their influence in the passage of such vital legislation that would greatly benefit the aging citizens of our Commonwealth and our Nation. Sponsored by Executive Board, Virginia State AFL-CIO. Unanimously adopted by delegates to 1960 convention of Virginia State AFL-CIO. LEO H. IRWIN, PHILADELPHIA AFL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION. Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The AFL Hospital Association as well as the A.F. of L. medical service plan has on previous occasions authorized the Group Health Association of America to express its position on the provisions of medical care through the medium of social security. It is also obvious that the position taken by the national AFL-CIO would also clearly state our feelings on the same subject. The above organizations represent a population of over 75,000 people who are receiving direct medical services through medical centers of their own and are now in the process of building a hospital to provide all necessary hospital, surgical, medical, rehabilitation, psychiatric facilities, etc. While our appearance before your committee might cover additional details in the support of the King-Anderson bill, we feel that, in this way we can help to conserve the valuable time of the committee. We do, however, want again to emphasize that we are unequivocally in support of the testimony that will be given before your committee by the GHAA and the national AFL-CIO. Respectfully submitted. ISIDOR MELAMED, Executive Director. LEO H. IRWIN, THE UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Chief Counsel, House Ways and Means Committee, HON. COUNSEL LEO H. IRWIN: I have received your letter in answer to my telegram and was disappointed to find out that my telegram did not meet rules. I am sending this letter according to your suggestion in your answer of July 24, 1961. It has been my duty to act as chairman of Local Union No. 1058, United Steelworkers of America, Hubbard, Ohio, Senior Citizen's Committee, on a voluntary basis, and it is the wish of local union 1058 senior citizen's that I act upon their behalf in requesting that this letter be printed in the record in lieu of a personal appearance. It is my, and the Senior Citizen's Committee of local union 1058 wish, that the Anderson-King bill be favored under social security and that it receives all consideration for passage under social security. As servant of local union 1058, I remain yours sincerely. GEORGE PUTKOVICH, Local Union 1058 Financial Secretary; Local Union 1058, Chairman, Senior Citizen's Committee. STATEMENT OF IRVIN P. SCHLOSS, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND I am glad to have this opportunity to state the views of the American Foundation for the Blind, the national voluntary research and consultant agency in the field of work for the blind, on H.R. 4222 which is designed to establish an insurance program under the social security system to cover the cost of hospitalization, skilled nursing home services, and home health services for persons 65 and over who are entitled to receive social security retirement pensions. The American Foundation for the Blind believes that this proposed legislation is desirable, timely, and meritorious. The concept of the proposed legislation is sound, practical, and in the best interests of the American people. By making it possible for persons to provide during their optimum years of employment through a contributory insurance plan for their health care needs after retirement age when their income is substantially curtailed, this legislation would enable our senior citizens to receive adequate health care for which they themselves had paid. At present, many older persons must do without the medical care they need because they cannot afford it, or else they must seek it on a charity basis-a demoralizing prospect for an individual who has spent his productive years as a typically independent American citizen contributing to the growth and development of our national economy. The typical retired worker finds himself in a difficult position today. Steadily increasing living costs force him to make every penny of his social security retirement pension stretch as far as it can. He and his wife begin to do without many small pleasures they enjoyed a few short years before the retirement he had so keenly looked forward to. He views with alarm the steadily increasing payments for doctor bills and medicines-expenses not covered in the legislation being considered-as the chronic ailments which attend the aging process become more persistent and frequent. An acute health situation requiring surgery or hospitalization for a period of 2 or 3 weeks arises and virtually wipes out his savings; and as a result, he and his wife live in dread of another similar occurrence because they do not have the financial resources required for today's medical care. I know that the situation I have just described is duplicated many times over in our country today. With an adequate health care insurance program under the social security system, it need not happen. According to the Social Security Administration, more than half a million oldage pension recipients are also receiving public assistance under the aid to the aged program. Similarly, approximately 25,000 recipients of retirement pensions and disability insurance payments have found it necessary to go on the public assistance rolls in the aid to the blind and aid to the permanently and totally disabled categories. There can be no question that the high cost of medical care is a highly significant contributing factor. How much better it would be for |