Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, THIRD DISTRICT DENTAL SOCIETY, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The Third District Dental Society of North Carolina is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 4222. We feel that the financing of health programs through the social security system is a dangerous precedent to set. While we recognize the needs which this program seeks to meet and are indeed interested in seeing that they are met, we feel that this particular method of financing introduces serious latent dangers to both our total economy and our traditional high level of health care through the historically inevitable expansion and implementation of such programs however innocuous their inception. Please include this communication in the record of the hearings. Very truly yours, C. W. POINDEXTER, Secretary. BISMARCK, N. DAK., August 2, 1961. Congressman WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: The North Dakota State Dental Association is against enactment of H.R. 4222 and opposed to similar legislation that would put health care for the aged under the social security system. Please enter this in the record of the hearings for H.R. 4222. Respectfully, D. R. PERRY, Secretary, North Dakota State Dental Association. SOUTH EAST DISTRICT DENTAL SOCIETY, Fargo, N. Dak., July 29, 1961. Re H.R. 4222. Representative WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR SIR: We of the South East District Dental Society wish to express our opposition to H.R. 4222, which would place health care for the aged under social security. Why give away taxpayers money unless it is absolutely necessary? Certainly only a fraction of the 14,200,000 persons 65 years or more of age need the benefits of H.R. 4222. Those that do, can be assisted by other means so that the majority of Americans can retain their freedom of choice and self-respect. It is our sincere belief that H.R. 4222 is not in the best interest of the general public and will only add an additional burden upon future generations. Please include this letter in the record of hearings. Sincerely yours, REED E. SANFORD, Secretary. STARK COUNTY DENTAL SOCIETY, Canton, Ohio, July 30, 1961. Representative WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLS: As secretary of the approximately 190 members of the Stark County Dental Society of Ohio, I hereby request that our opposition to the enactment of H.R. 4222 be made a part of the records of your hearings. We are wholeheartedly opposed to this extremely serious step which you gentlemen are considering. Realizing the definite existence of the problem, we feel an alternative method to be much wiser. In fact, the dental health of the elderly can be handled in many cases on a local level, thus not burdening our already heavily laden social security system. A thorough study of the true total results as experienced by reveal what we could be headed for if this measure were enacted. England will ample can be found in the expressions of Dr. E. Lloyd Dawe, as found in Nation's Business, July 1961. Again I urge that citizens be taught to be self-sustaining and less dependent on society. Respectfully yours, Dr. BERNIE A. MCCONNELL, Secretary. OREGON STATE DENTAL ASSOCIATION, Representative WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: The Oregon State Dental Association joins with the American Dental Association in urging that you vote against H.R. 4222. We are emphatically opposed, in principle, to the provision of health care benefits by the Federal Government to any segment of the general population without regard to need. H.R. 4222 would "blanket in" 14,200,000 persons 65 or over who are eligible for social security benefits under OASDI. We urge that you vote against H.R. 4222, and request that the text of this letter be placed in the record of the hearings on the bill. Very truly yours, LOUIS B. SCHOEL, D.M.D., President. PORTLAND DISTRICT DENTAL SOCIETY, Representative AL ULLMAN, DEAR CONGRESSMAN ULLMAN: We are writing to you as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee from Oregon, urging that you vote against H.R. 4222. In principle, we are emphatically opposed to the provision of health care benefits by the Federal Government to any segment of the general population without regard to need. H.R. 4222 would "blanket in" 14,200,000 persons 65 or over who are eligible for social security benefits under OASDI. The Portland District Dental Society urges that you vote against H.R. 4222. Very truly yours, VERNON R. MANNY, D.M.D., P.S.-It is requested that the text of this letter be placed in the records of the hearings on the bill. Representative WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D.C. PARIS, TEX., July 28, 1961. SIR: The First District Dental Society of Texas is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 4222 and we respectfully request our position to be included in the record of the hearings. Representative WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committce, B. M. FELTY, Secretary. EL PASO, TEX., July 31, 1961. DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLS: The El Paso District Dental Society would like to go on record as opposed to H.R. 4222. We do not feel that this function is a valid operation of Government. Please include this statement in the record of the hearings. Your consideration will be appreciated. Sincerely, DON DIXON, D.D.S., Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. LEO IRWIN, Clerk, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1961 DEAR LEO: Please include the enclosed correspondence in the record of the hearings on bill H.R. 4222. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. BYRNES. GREEN BAY, Wis., July 28, 1961. JOHN W. BYRNES, Washington, D.C.: The Brown Door Kewaunee Dental Society of the Wisconsin State Dental Society wishes to go on record as being opposed to the enactment of H.R. 4222, the health care program. Please include this letter in the record of the hearings. It is our firm belief that the program is not in the best interest of the public. THOMAS G. BARRETT, D.D.S., Secretary-Treasury, Brown Door Kewaunee Dental Society. Representative JOHN W. BYyrnes, MILWAUKEE, WIS., August 3, 1961. House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Wisconsin State Dental Society, representing 2,250 practicing dentists, unalterably opposed to enactment of H.R. 4222. Sincerely convinced legislation not in the best interest of the public. Health benefits should not be extended by Government to any segment of public without regard to need. Will appreciate consideration of our views. JAMES D. KELLY, D.D.S., Chairman, Legislative Committee. Hon. JOHN W. BYRNES, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. JEFFERSON COUNTY DENTAL SOCIETY, INC., DEAR SIR: The Jefferson County Dental Society, consisting of 31 members, is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 4222. We are also of the firm belief that this bill is not in the best interests of the public. We request that this opposition from the Jefferson County Dental Society be included in the record of the hearings. Sincerely yours, A. F. GROSNICK, D.D.S., MENASHA, Wis., July 31, 1961. Representative JOHN W. BYRNES, House Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BYRNES: On June 22, 1961, the Winnebago County Dental Society, composed of 76 members, passed the following resolution: "Be it resolved, That the Winnebago County Dental Society is unanimously against the H.R. 4222 because we believe that it is against the best interests of the public." We wish that this letter be recorded in hearings. DR. R. A. JUNEAU, Secretary, Winnebago County Dental Society. WYOMING STATE DENTAL ASSOCIATION, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MILLS: The Wyoming State Dental Association strongly opposes the passage of H.R. 4222. It is our thinking that the proposed H.R. 4222 is too broad in its aspects and is not in the best interest of the public. It is desired that this expression of opposition be included in the record of the hearing. Sincerely yours, T. J. DREW, D.D.S., CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I will be grateful if you will include the accompanying letter in the record of the hearings before your committee on H.R. 4222. With warmest personal regards. Sincerely, JOHN A. BLATNIK, WASECA, MINN., June 30, 1961. Representative JOHN A. BLATNIK, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BLATNIK: I am writing you to express my opposition to the King bill (H.R. 4222), which will be under discussion in July. I hope you will insert this letter in the committee hearings. I can imagine it is very difficult for lay people to understand a physician's attitude toward the Federal Government entering even a part of the medical care field. Certainly the King bill is not all-inclusive coverage and I know that proponents of this bill argue that it is not replacing private medical care and never will, however I think experience in other countries has shown that these programs never go backward and generally become more-inclusive in time. My own attitude is one of definite opposition to the King bill. This attitude has developed over a period of years and has developed with an overall view toward Government health care generally. Over this period of time I have personally been involved with veterans hospitals and also with medical care to servicemen. I have also been in private practice long enough now to see the marked difference in attitude toward spending my own and the patient's dollars for supplies and care as contrasted to spending the Government's money. Even though it is the taxpayer who indirectly is paying I think this fact is obscured to almost everyone employed in a federally supported medical facility, as evidenced to me by the needless waste and reduplication that goes on, and there is no question about this. I think if you would talk personally to any physician who has been employed in Government medicine if he were honest about it he would have to admit that this is the case. From the layman's standpoint, he is clearly unable to evaluate much of this wasteful spending and I think any estimation of cost of a Federal program cannot avoid being grossly underestimated. I think the public attitude is "something for nothing" and this could not be further from the truth. I think a good hard look should be taken at government health plans existing in other countries, and particularly I think it is important to get the attitude of a good share of the doctors who are under that type of program. I have personally talked to doctors from England who have come to this country because they have been very dissatisfied with the program and also to a Canadian doctor who left Canada only because of their socialized medical care. I have had a good opportunity to see patients' attitudes toward the doctor under a Federal program and under a private program. In Government service many patients had the attitude that "I have it coming, give it to me, you're employed by the Government and you owe it to me." When the patient is paying himself he wants to look after his dollars just as I do. I enjoy private practice and am in private practice mainly because I am able to run my own business and I enjoy doing this. Any Federal program in the State of Minnesota would certainly be unnecessary duplication of care. With Minnesota's welfare program there is no limit to duration of care or the facility used for care whether it is a hospital, rest home, home, or the doctor's office. The program is administered very simply in that each month we submit our itemized bill to the county welfare director who administers it from there. There are no long forms to fill out and there is no redtape; it is as simple as sending the patient his bill. One feature of Minnesota's program I think that is very good is the fact that only people who really need the care qualify and people with property or some funds may qualify for the program nevertheless at the time of death those funds or that property is used to replace what they have taken from the program, and I think this is only right. Also I think this program encourages children to take care of their parents, and I think we are losing sight of this today. In short, my opposition against any Federal entrance into medical care is based not only on wasteful expenditure of funds but also on a rather intangible factor which keeps myself and I'm sure other physicians working and happily caring for people because our contacts with patients give us a very satified feeling. I am truly afraid that this physician-patient relationship would be disturbed and perhaps destroyed by Federal entrance into medical care. Very truly yours, Representative WILBUR D. MILLS, WAYNE L. CAMPBELL, M.D. BLUE EARTH MEDICAL CENTER. Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLS: I am writing to you about the King bill (H.R. 4222). Please be advised that I am opposed to the King bill which is an act to provide health benefits for senior citizens under the Social Security Act. After practicing medicine in Blue Earth, Minn., which is the county seat of Faribault County, it is my opinion that we have always been able to take care of our senior citizens that are in need of help; and it is my sincere belief that we should be able to do this in the foreseeable future. Granted that there are some of our senior citizens who are unable to provide for themselves medically, but we have always been able to take care of this on a local level without sacrificing their pride nor the caliber of medical care that they receive. We are in the process of building a rest home for our senior citizens, and this is being done by popular subscription. It is my opinion that this type of procedure could be done more widely and that if people generally had more pride in themselves and their local communities, it would be less necessary for Federal funds to be wasted or used inadvisedly. I hope that you will consider my plea, and I would like very much for you to insert this letter in the committee's hearings. Respectfully yours, LEO H. IRWIN, GEORGE W. DREXLER, M.D. ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., July 28, 1961. Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR MR. IRWIN: I am submitting this statement to the Committee on Ways and Means with reference to H.R. 4222, also known as the King-Anderson bill. It is desired that this statement be printed in the record in lieu of a personal appearance. My name is Leonard S. Ellenbogen, M.D., and my medical practice specialty is radiology. I practice at 1616 Pacific Avenue, Atlantic City, N.J., and have practiced in this city for 16 years. H.R. 4222 presents a definite and grave economic threat to me and physicians like me who provide diagnostic services on a private practice basis. Specifically, the provision that diagnostic procedures costing more than $20 be furnished by hospital outpatient clinics would result in the loss of a large 76123-61-pt. 4-30 |