Responses to questionnaire on medical care costs for the aged were received Mr. KING (presiding). Mrs. Hymes, the committee appreciates your bringing to it the views of your organization. Are there any questions? If not, thank you very much. Mrs. HYMES. Thank you very much. (The following information was received for the record:) COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, D.C. ot ack e in (Attention: Mr. Leo H. Irwin, Chief Counsel). I was concerned to hear him say that in studies conducted of the His testimony was drawn from the enclosed Minn 1959-60. I am attaching a statement elabo because I believe these qualifications mater umu g aca new nstead r thing "cent of Others medical endents, service thorizes and for y living in their without The testimony that only 7 percent of Minnesota's citizens over 65 are medically indigent and that these receive complete care under State old age assistance apparently is based on a statement on page 65 of Minnesota's Aging Citizens, which states further that, "these findings applied only to the recipients of public assistance who constituted not quite 15 percent of Minnesota's aging in 1958." This unfortunately provides no indication of how many persons over 65 failed to obtain medical care for fear of inability to pay for it, the number who impoverished themselves in paying for it, those who carried their medical debts to the grave with them, nor those whose existence is made miserable by the constant fear that major medical costs beyond their means may engulf them. Further explanation needs to be noted with reference to the testimony which indicates that in the Minnesota Survey of senior citizens only 5 percent reported that finances prevented them from obtaining needed medical care. Actually this question was put to only that 13 percent who reported currently having a major health difficulty; of these almost one-half listed money to cover the anticipated costs as the deterrent to seeking treatment. Regarding the interpretation of data on net worth for that survey, it is important to remember that all assets including the value of the respondent's home, if he owned one, were totaled to obtain net worth. Therefore, a high proportion of the modest assets reported are hardly in liquid asset form, or in such form as might be converted to payment for medical care without jeopardizing the ability to maintain oneself in his own home. Submitted by Mrs. Charles Hymes, Minneapolis, Minn., August 4, 1961. Elaboration on testimony submitted by Dr. J. Minot Stickney, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., representing the Minnesota Medical Association, on August 4, 1961. Mr. KING. Our next witness is Mr. Bob Conger, president, U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce. Come forward, please, Mr. Conger. STATEMENT OF BOB CONGER, PRESIDENT, U.S. JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. CONGER. Gentlemen, it is a privilege for me to appear before this committee on behalf of the more than 200,000 young men of this Nation who belong to the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce. The reason I am here is to speak in opposition of H.R. 4222, a bill to provide payment for hospital services, skilled nursing home services, and home health services furnished to aged beneficiaries under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program. Gentlemen, the young men in the U.S. Jaycees are greatly disturbed as to the effects of this legislation and have indicated their concern by the passage of a resolution opposing it at our recent national convention in Atlanta, Ga. A copy of this resolution is attached to my printed statement for your information. I have come here not only because the trend toward increased governmental centralization, particularly in areas such as socialized medicine, is contrary to our belief in individual determination and responsibility, but also to offer specific points to help guide this committee in its deliberations on this matter. Of primary concern is the fact that the Jaycees, who range in age from 21 to 35, resent bearing this heavy tax burden for the rest of our economically productive lives. It is a tax and it is a burden. And, it will be our burden? It is the responsibility, generally, of the middle age group, that is those persons who have finished their education and have not yet reached the age of retirement, to produce the goods consumed by all age groups. It is also the responsibility of this group to pay the major part of the taxes which support this Government and its programs. The apparent trend toward 'longer education and earlier retirement tends to compress this working group at both ends. Even without this compression, however, the age group of 20 to 64 inclusive has shrunk from 59.9 percent of the population in 1940 to 53 percent in 1960 and will further decline to approximately 50 percent in 1970. This decline in the percentage of working and producing population causes us great concern with programs which place larger and larger tax burdens on this group. Frankly, gentlemen, the thought is not a pleasant one. I also indicated the method of payment for these benefits is a tax. May I remind you of the fallacy of the prepayment concept upon which H.R. 4222, and indeed the entire Social Security Act, is built. The Jaycees and others like us must immediately begin payments to finance the cost of medical care for those over 65 currently receiving social security benefits who have not contributed a cent toward these medical costs. We must rely for our retirement upon the charity of others, the economic and social climate and world conditions which we cannot control or foresee. Even if we contribute the rest of our working lives to the support of this program, these contributions will not be actuarily sufficient to cover the benefits which would accrue to us during our period of retirement. The only safe way we can make advance provision for our old age is to contribute to a reserve fund which can produce adequate interest to furnish pension payments when we retire. It will be most difficult for us to do this if we must now begin paying the extra burden which would be required of us under this proposed legislation. Since the prepayment concept is false, the term "insurance" cannot properly be used in connection with this act. If the terms "prepayment" and "insurance" are to be swept back under the carpet of misconception, then the only term we can use in good conscience is "tax." In Jaycees external programing, we have what we call the community development concept. Basically, it involves programing according to need. If a need is found in the community for a new civic center, Jaycees are urged to work for its development instead of another project which on the surface may seem the popular thing to do. I believe we can apply that concept to legislation. I maintain there is not sufficient need for this act. The insurance industry estimates that approximately 50 percent of those over 65 currently have some form of health insurance. Others are receiving aid through veterans' medical care programs, medical care programs for retired military personnel and their dependents, and the medical care plan established by Congress for civil service employees which, by the way, provides for freedom of choice. Additionally, the Kerr-Mills bill (Public Law 86-778) authorizes payment for care for the indigent under old-age assistance and for those individuals who, while able to provide for day-to-day living expenses, may not be able to meet the cost of health care in their present economic status. These benefits could be received without forfeit of social security retirement benefits. Other objections to this bill are: (1) The social security amendment would establish a vast program of compulsory health insurance for those over 65 regardless of real need or personal desires. (2) By amending the Social Security Act in such a manner, you are opening the door to more far-reaching legislation as regards control of health and medical facilities. For just as surely as this Health Benefit Act rides on the coattails of social security, other measures will come along to ride on the precedent set by this act. (3) The social security approach is inequitable since the burden of payment for the program falls on the low-income workers, and raising the taxable maximum to $5,000 will not substantially help that. (4) New and more extensive Federal machinery would be required to operate the program. Contractual agreements will have to be entered into, reviewed, terminated, negotiated, renewed, and reviewed again with thousands of drugstores and medical facilities. (5) This approach would further erode the American free enterprise system by eliminating millions of insurance customers automatically, plus thousands of others who will be tempted to remain without insurance through the normally healthy younger years, depending upon subsequent broadening of coverage by the Federal Government for help as they approach retirement. (6) Persons of responsibility would tend to build less of a backlog of savings for retirement years and thus would become more dependent than ever on the Federal Government. (7) By tying the Health Insurance Benefits Act of 1961 to the Social Security Act, you are depriving States, municipalities, and voluntary agencies of their traditional welfare role. In summary, I personally, and the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, which I represent, oppose this bill on the grounds heretofore stated. Therefore, gentlemen, in facing the most important legislative decision confronting this session of Congress, I urge you to make a firm stand for the present free enterprise system of medical care, unencumbered by excessive Federal control. I have full confidence that you will justify the trust placed in you by the freedom-loving people of this Nation. Thank you very much for you attention and consideration. (Resolution of Junior Chamber of Commerce follows.) RESOLUTION ON OPPOSITION TO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, ADOPTED JUNE 1961 Whereas the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce is ever mindful of Federal legislative enactment which affects the economic and social lives of the people of this great Nation; and Whereas there is currently pending in the Congress of the United States House bill 4222 initiating compulsory medical health care benefits under the social security system which is not in the best interest of the American people; and Whereas enactment of this or similar legislation would be detrimental to the high standards of medical care, would deprive the citizens of the United States of the opportunity to provide their own medical care, would discourage our citizens of today from preparing for their old age and, at the same time, tend to remove the responsibility of men and women of America from caring for their own families; and Whereas such legislation would be another step toward socialism and would jeopardize our free enterprise system which has made steady progress in extending and improving voluntary hospital insurance coverage of the aged under commercial programs; and Whereas one of the present proposals has in it the elements of Government determination of the price for hospital, nursing home, and medical service fees and would restrict the beneficiaries in their choice of hospitals and physicians; and Whereas this bill, if enacted, would increase the cost of social security and would possibly be extended progressively to include comprehensive care for larger and larger segments of our population, thereby decreasing the take-home pay of the American citizen; and Whereas the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce believes this country has become great through the individual initiative of its citizens and that legislation of this type to suppress this initiative: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, in convention assembled this 21st day of June 1961 in Atlanta, Ga., hereby opposes the House bill 4222 now pending before the Congress of the United States or any similar legislation that may be introduced; and be it further Resolved, That the newly elected president of the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce be directed to request time to present personal testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in July 1961; and be it further Resolved, That we believe that said proposed legislation would destroy our voluntary health program in the United States and further that it violates constitutional freedoms and the creed of the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be presented to the President and the Vice President of the United States of America, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and each Member of the Congress of the United States of America. Mr. KING. Mr. Conger, the committee appreciates your bringing to us the views of your organization. Are there any questions? If not; thank you, Mr. Conger. Mr. CONGER. Thank you. Mr. KING. Mr. Galyon. Is Mr. Galyon here? Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the committee and present to the committee Aubrey E. Galyon of Knoxville, Tenn., whom I have known for many years. He is a man of great ability and an outstanding labor leader. I respect his views highly. Mr. KING. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF AUBREY E. GALYON, BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE, KNOXVILLE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO Mr. GALYON. Thank you, Congressman Baker. Mr. Chairman, you have had several witnesses here describing the conditions throughout America and throughout all parts of the world. I do not know whether this is a switch or not, but I am confining my remarks to one of the greatest communities in the richest country in the world, east Tennessee. I am here in behalf of the AFL-CIO members and the Senior Citizens Committee in the Second Congressional District of Tennessee. In their behalf, I express appreciation to this committee for giving me the opportunity to give our views in support of the President's health insurance proposal, H.R. 4222, the Health Insurance Benefits Act of 1961. |