Union members and blacks would like Washington
to offer home and auto insurance.

In contrast to most subgroups of the population, union
members and blacks tend to prefer Federal rather than
private insurance for their homes and automobiles.

People in managerial households, Republicans, and families
earning $7,000 or more would much rather deal with private
insurance companies than with the Federal government.

"Do you feel that we need a new nationwide Federal health insurance program?"

The public is calling for some type of new Federal health insurance program.

There can be no doubt that Americans want Federal help for
the nation's badly-strained health-care system... the only
question is, what form should it take?

Many different proposals have been offered, along with
a variety of revenue-raising methods to cover the anticipated
annual costs (which range from an estimated $5 billion for
the Nixon proposals to more than $50 billion* for the
Kennedy proposals.) The more important of these proposals,
as evaluated by the public, are discussed on the next

two pages.

*Of which perhaps half might be diverted from private plans.

The American people do not want fully socialized medicine at the present time.

The all-inclusive health insurance program sponsored by Senator Kennedy appeals to only about one out of six Americans (17% of the total public.) In contrast, a majority (54%) support Federal coverage for the needy, the aged, veterans and their families.

President Nixon's proposals to: (1) increase the supply of doctors, (2) insure against the effects of catastrophic illness, and (3) assist in the formation of health maintenance organizations, all receive fairly widespread public support.

"What (as shown on this list) do you think a nationwide Federal health insurance

There is surprising agreement among Democrats,
Republicans and Independents about various
Federal health insurance proposals.

The first three proposals listed in the chart below are
supported at equivalent levels, regardless of party preference.
Republicans tend to be somewhat less enthusiastic about the
following three proposals, however.

program should cover?"

Senator HANSEN. Thank you.

On the other hand, the survey showed only one in six Americans favored a federalized health system such as some suggested.

Medicredit is possible, workable and basic to any Federal role. It was first introduced in the 91st Congress. Upon its introduction, those of us who were the sponsors suggested changes and improvements. I am pleased to say that this bill this year is an improved model. It does three things:

(1) It pays for medical care for the poor. (2) It helps all Americans provide health insurance for themselves and their families, and (3) it protects everyone against major medical expenses of catastrophic

size.

These things should be done. They can be done. They can be done through medicredit at a cost which the American taxpayer can afford.

It may be that some further modifications in this approach are desirable. For instance, I have also sponsored the Nixon administration bill which mandates employers to provide health insurance for all employees. I believe that this is a valuable contribution, and it builds on the present system in which many employers already provide such insurance. That is another principle in which I strongly believe: Use the present system and improve it. Don't destroy it.

Use of group policies and pools for high-risk individuals, the selfemployed and others outside employer groups would also be desirable. It would provide the maximum coverage for the minimum cost to employer, employee and taxpayer.

In brief, a few other principles which I believe are very important in this discussion and consideration are:

First, benefits must be comprehensive and stress coverage for outpatient and ambulatory care. Medicredit does this. It also stresses keeping well by paying for annual physical examinations, innoculations, and well-baby care.

Second, coverage for everyone must include catastrophic illness protection. Medicredit does this on a sliding scale based on family

income.

Third, use of deductibles or coinsurance is necessary for all but the truly indigent. Medicredit's deductibles are small compared to the benefits, but they are important to keep the cost within reason. The taxpayers must not be expected to pay everything. They cannot.

Fourth, review of the appropriateness of treatment and charges should be carried out by the peers of the providers on an organized basis. While last year's medicredit contained such a provision in the same bill, this year it is a separate companion measure, S. 1898.

The other basic principles I have already mentioned: The most help for those who need the most: Build on the best of the present system; encourage group coverage and pools.

This, in summary, is medicredit. I was pleased to be the principal sponsor of the bill in the last Congress. I am even more pleased with the improved bill in this Congress.

The principles on which medicredit is based have wide-spread support in the Congress. Medicredit has more sponsors than any other bill by far. These men and women have said, in effect, that this is a bill which will work, a bill which makes sense, and an approach which the American people will support and can afford.