and no nation can be truly democratic that does not consider the needs of its people. The officers and members of the Alabama League of Aging Citizens and the National Association of Senior Citizens of America, most seriously urge the passage of H.R. 4222, through passage of this bill, and would to that end again call to your attention not only the humanitarian aspect, but the needs of our Nation today for every available ounce of its energy and resource, not just to preserve our society, but that freedom and a better life might flourish for all in our society. Yours very truly, RUBIN M. HANAN, President. ROCHESTER, MINN., July 8, 1961. Representative WILBUR MILLS, U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR SIR: I have just received a letter from James A. Blake, M.D., chairman of the statewide congressional committee (Minnesota), requesting that I contact you and my representative in Congress (Albert Quie) to urge you to oppose the King bill, H.R. 4222. This I cannot do. In fact, I strongly urge you to favor passage of the bill. While I usually agree with the general aims of the American Medical Association, I often disagree with it about the proper way to accomplish these goals. In my opinion, lack of leadership on the part of the association in meeting the health needs of the Nation will inevitably lead to legislation that will be even more unpalatable in its views than is the King bill. The fact is that we have an aging population. Indeed, modern medical care, which is a tribute in large part to the ability of the Nation's physicians in developing new methods, drugs, and techniques to further prolong life, contributes to this situation and will continue to do so. It is appropriate, then, that physicians should interest themselves in some practical way in which good medical care can be made available to the aged. Physicins must recognize that when an older person is poor he is very, very poor, and is likely to remain so. Also, since social security reflects to a great degree money earned by the toil of the individual in younger and more productive years, it is not a "pure handout." The psychological value of this circumstance to the recipient is obvious. For many persons social security payments represent the only way doctor's bills can be paid. Furthermore, if older citizens cannot meet their medical charges by social security they may be very well be obliged to accept services from tax-supported charity clinics, the purest form of socialized medicine in America today. Please insert may letter in the committee's hearings. Hon. SAM RAYBURN, W. N. TAUXE, M.D. INDIANAPOLIS, IND., July 11, 1961. Speaker's Rooms, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Presently am attending triorganization scientific and clincial conference on rehabilitation. It came to my attention that bill H.R. 4222 presently being considered in House Ways and Means Committee specifically lists physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech therapy as reimbursable therapies. I feel as a physician and a constituent of yours that this limits the doctor in prescribing therapy. A broader term such as "rehabilitation services" should be substituted. Such a change would be to the advantage of the patient and control would be left in the hands of the medical doctor. Respectfully yours, Dr. GEORGE R. ELLIS, McKinney, Tex. WILBUR MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, SEATTLE, WASH., June 28, 1961. I have just learned that the American Nurses Association and the Washington State Nurses Association are officially on record favoring the King-Anderson bill which would mean welfare-type medical care for social security recipients, and that these groups plan to present statements urging its enactment at the hearings soon to be held by your committee. Having studied this bill, it is my conviction that its enactment would lead to poorer, not better medical care for our elderly citizens, and that the KerrMills plan instead, is the proper solution for this program. I would like to commend you, personally, for your part in its enactment during the last session of Congress. It is very unfortunate that the policymaking group of the ANA and WSNA is made up of a small number of administrators and instructors who on nonprofessional matters of this kind often do not reflect the views of the majority of professional nurses. As an active member and as president of my school's nurses alumni association (University of Washington), I know that most graduate nurses not only are unfamiliar with the unpublicized provisions of the King bill, but will bitterly resent the tax increase that its financing would require to meet its real cost. It is bordering on fraud to pretend that $9 million will cover the cost of nursing-home care, for example, for all of America's elder citizens, when our own State alone already is paying twice that much each year even without Kerr-Mills increased coverage. I do not think that there is any doubt that this bill would be detrimental both to nurses and to the ideals of nursing, which I recently attempted to portray in a book I recently coauthored, "So You Want To Be a Nurse." I sincerely hope that your committee will be able to withstand the pressures which will be placed upon it favoring the passage of this ill-advised legislation. Its passage would be a tragic blow to the progress of the health care of the elderly citizens of America. I would appreciate your insuring that this letter is made a part of the record of the hearings of your committee. Sincerely yours, ELEANOR HARtvedt HallIDAY, R.N. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., July 1, 1961. Re H.R. 4222 and freedom. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: My parents came from Denmark to this country shortly after the turn of the century, and for but one reason-freedom. Already at that time Denmark was becoming too socialistic for them. Today it is highly socialized, and the people in Denmark with whom I correspond because of my parents, are not happy. Denmark ranks next to Sweden in having the highest suicide rate in the world. Why? I think you know the answer as well as I do. Our freedoms are also gradually being taken away. I fought the fair housing law here in Minnesota on the basis of discrimination against property owners. It is not fair to property owners, who are the backbone of this country, to be hampered by a law of this nature. It is just another step toward Government control and it will discourage ownership of property. I felt we were making good progress in the field of racial relations in Minneapolis and this was being accomplished through the churches, the schools, and the community. I hit hard at the clergy in my letters to the editors and in my lobbying, for the clergy was the main force behind this bill. They should know that one cannot legislate brotherly love. You will recall that Gandhi once said "Prejudices cannot be removed by legislation. They yield only to patient toil and education." I understand, we rent to Negroes and other minorities. 76123-61-pt. 4- 19 I do not pretend to understand the various bills pertaining to medical care, but I do know that I am opposed to socialized medicine. This is just one more step toward the loss of freedom-both for patients and doctors. I know that my husband, my daughter, and I would not be alive today if our private physician in whom we had faith, and who in turn had his heart and soul in his work, and the freedom to act, had not been available. We also understand what freedom really means since we have had our own business. It is a challenge. It has had its ups and downs, mostly downs, and it has not paid off moneywise, nor does it mean security, but it is freedom. The doctors, too, need this freedom to practice, to build up their own business and meet the challenge of their profession. I am not opposed to aiding those really in need of medical care, but I do oppose aiding those who can take care of themselves. I hope you will oppose H.R. 4222 and any bill which tends to control our freedoms, and I hope you will insert this letter in the committee's hearings. DEAR MR. IRWIN: Thank you for your letter of July 24. As indicated in the telegram sent to you on July 21, I am president of the Senior Citizens Council of Minneapolis, an organization composed of 33 senior citizens clubs in this city, having a total membership of over 2,000. At a regular meeting of the council held on April 10, 1961, at which nearly all of the member clubs were represented, a resolution was unanimously adopted favoring the passage of the King bill, H.R. 4222, and a copy of the resolution was mailed to most of our Minnesota Congressmen. It was our wish that a rep resentative of our Senior Citizens Council might be permitted to appear before your committee in person and testify in favor of the bill. We are aware of the fact that some opponents of the bill claim that many retired persons who are now receiving social security benefits have ample means and do not need hospital or medical benefits. That is true, but according to a survey in Minnesota conducted last year by the American Association of University Women, under the direction of the University of Minnesota, not more than 42 percent of the retired persons are so situated. At least 58 percent of the retired persons do need financial help to take care of hospital and medical expenses after retirement. The survey also showed that 53 percent of all people over 65 years of age had income of less than $2,000 per year and that 33 percent had a net worth of less than $2,500. We submit that retired citizens do not wish to be treated as charity patients but prefer that deductions made during the earning years be accumulated as insurance to cover hospital and medical needs in their retirement years. It is also charged that there are many who are not covered by social security. That is true, but social security has been expanded and no doubt can be and will be expanded further to cover those who are not now covered. We do not think it is fair to say that this is a step toward socialized medicine. As we understand it, there is nothing in this bill which will prevent the bene ficiary from selecting the doctor or hospital of his choice, and the fact that the beneficiary must pay the first $90 of hospital expense will prevent any so-called chiseling. We realize that there will always be cases of dire need that will have to be taken care of by local or county welfare boards, but we believe that the vast majority of senior citizens will be able to take care of their own hospital and medical expenses after retirement with the help that will be provided under the King bill, H.R. 4222. It is desired that this statement be printed in the record in lieu of a personal appearance before your committee. Very truly yours, E. B. RINGHAM, President. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A., Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR MR. MILLS: In behalf of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. I am pleased to send this letter for consideration by the Committee on Ways and Means and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearings on the President's health insurance proposal, H.R. 4222. The economics of medical care for the aged were studied over a 3-year period by two departments of the National Council of Churches; considered by 376 members of the governing committees of these departments and by the executive board of a division with authority over 8 departments. On February 22, 1961, a proposed resolution, which had been adopted at regular meetings of each department and the executive board without dissent or abstention, was presented to the general board of the council by one of the medical doctors who had participated in its formulation. The resolution was adopted by the general board without dissent or obstention. In attendance at this meeting of the board were 105 voting members who were the elected representatives of 23 member denominations. This resolution on "The Economics of Medical Care for the Aged" noted that voluntary prepayment health plans should be encouraged, but also stated that these plans are unable to offer coverage for even a fraction of health care needs at charges that most people 65 years of age and older can possibly afford. The resolution also pointed out that the voluntary plans "necessarily based upon experience rating, discriminate against high-risk groups and are not geared to the problems of chronic illness characteristic of old age.' The resolution continued: "If voluntary prepayment plans cannot accomplish the desired ends, Government should protect the health of people by making possible the prepayment of health services. This is precisely what the social security system would be able to provide efficiently through the mechanisms of oldage, survivors, and disability insurance. Therefore, the National Council of Churches supports in principle legislation which will extend the benefits of oldage, survivors, and disability insurance to include adequate health care for retired aged persons." This action was taken unanimously by a representative assembly officially constituted by the member denominations. I need hardly point out that the council's official action does not reflect the views of its entire constituency, even as the acts of Congress do not reflect the views of all citizens. However, I trust the committee will give due consideration to the action of the eminent elected representatives of the churches. It was taken after thorough and objective study with no personal or organizational interest other than the welfare of the Nation's retired citizens. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: This letter is in regard to the numerous bills which are before your committee dealing with the problems and needs of the aging and the aged. We request that this letter be made a part of the record of the public hearings. The General Board of Christian Social Concerns is an agency of the Methodist Church. I am Roger Burgess, associate general secretary, and am responsible for the division of temperance and general welfare. The location and general offices of this board, and my office, is given on this letterhead. The Methodist Church from its very beginning has been interested in the physical and material welfare of our citizens as well as in their moral and spiritual welfare. The social creed of the Methodist Church as reaffirmed in its general conference of 1960 states specifically: "We stand for security for old age, for insurance against sickness and injury to the worker, and for increased protection against those preventable conditions which produce want." We support wholeheartedly the action of the Congress which moves to accomplish these ends. We are not concerned with the conflict of interest between the several groups which, each in their own way, would seek to accomplish these purposes. So long as there is one person hungry; so long as there is one aged person in need; so long as there is one sick person unable to secure adequate hospitalization or nursing care; so long as there is one person who faces in terror a bleak and uncared for future-for just that long we say, "Enough has not been done." We do not suggest which bill, or provision of a bill, will accomplish these purposes, but we do suggest that with the increased millions of aging and aged. no less than heroic measures are required, and such heroic measures the Methodist Church will support. We also request that we be notified when public hearings will be held so that a representative of this board may attend those hearings. Sincerely yours, ROGER BURGESS, Associate General Secretary. COMMENTS ON THE KING-ANDERSON BILL, BY EMERSON O. MIDYETT I had originally planned to come to Washington to appear personally at these hearings, but I found that I just could not afford to after all. Therefore, I have prepared this statement regarding the King-Anderson bill in the hope that it will set forth my views and convictions on this matter. It is submitted to you, the members of the Ways and Means Committee, with my sincere appreciation. As a retired individual, 76 years old, I have been active for many years working toward the resolution of the problems of the aged, none of which is more serious than their inability to pay for high medical costs such as hospital and nursing home care. I have been a member of a senior center for many years. I am also chairman, Reduced Transportation Fares for Senior Citizens in San Francisco, and a member of the Catholic Committee on the Aging, Archdiocese of San Francisco. Last year, I attended the Governor's Conference on Aging and the White House Conference on Aging. Since my return from the White House Conference on Aging last January, 1 have been besieged with letters, telephone calls, and personal calls by many hundreds of the seniors or aged in San Francisco and other parts of northern California. These people are all deeply concerned and greatly worried about problems of medical and hospital care which have arisen through no fault of the aging group. Most of those who communicated with me felt that upon retiring from work or immediately prior to their retirement that they had, to the best of their ability, tried to assure themselves of some degree of security and protection against medical care costs. Several were people in their seventies and eighties who reported that their savings had been eroded by increasing costs, especially of medical care. Most said they had once carried hospital insurance but their policies had been canceled upon retirement. Those permitted to carry their policies into retirement found their benefits materially reduced and premiums increased to such an extent they were unable to continue to carry them. The policies later offered to this group by the insurance interests are so limited that usually they cover 20 to 25 percent of the actual cost of hospital care in California. The premiums remain at an absurdly high figure for persons with extremely limited incomes, a situation hard to understand since the protection is low in comparison with the costs. In the last year or so, I have attended numerous conferences, committee meetings, and discussions on the needs of the aging and in all of these, the participants are doctors, insurance company representatives, members of charitable organizations, employers, and officials of welfare departments. Seldom are there present, except for a token representation, those most deeply concerned, the senior citizens themselves. This seems to me to be a case of study and examination of the patient without the patient being present. These conferences have resulted in mountains of material containing studies, recommendations, statistics, and reports, particularly on medical care of the aged. All of this represents a vast amount of activity, but so far, in my opinion, there has been very little action. 1 |