working and what ones are not, I offered a bill which is now law which permitted pension plans to extend to include health insurance. We have $64 billion in our union-management pension programs. As they understood the law they couldn't put it into health insurance because we had not thought of that at the time we originally gave the tax credit to permit these to be set up.

Mr. OSSOFSKY. That is certainly worth examining, Congressman Curtis. It might prove to be of some help temporarily but in a sense aren't we taking it out of one pocket to put in the other because the pension benefits we provide are so inadequate?

Mr. CURTIS. That is a proper argument. The point I am getting at is that that was an impediment. I hope we are going to move forward. The point made by some people was, "Well, that is asking unions to put this into some of the various contracts."

I said, "Yes, it is." I hope this will move forward. So, you are getting at the point in answering back on this. I think it is a very good point. On the other hand, it could be that as we develop the techniques in insurance we can do both. I would ask whether you have had the catastrophic type health insurance which is really the cheapest type of insurance because the incidence of a catastrophic illness fortunately is not great so that you can spread the risk over a sizable number of people and so reduce the cost.

Mr. BALDINGER. If I may interrupt, sir, I think you will find among older people in the retired group, in that category, the incidence of catastrophic illness is far greater than it is in the total population.

Mr. CURTIS. I think you are in error. A person who will have a stroke at a younger age is more apt to survive than a person who has a stroke, for example, or heart attack in an older age.

I am talking out of my field. This is a matter of medical knowledge that we should get. There is some data that is important. I think I am right on that.

Mr. BALDINGER. The experience of our plan, some of which is cited here, for example, indicates that the hospital stay for the retired person is nearly twice as long as on average than it is for the nonretired people.

Mr. CURTIS. That is why I asked you about nursing homes. I know that we are using hospitals all too often when actually if we had good convalescent homes or nursing homes of high standards it would cut the cost considerably.

I was going to ask also whether you have the home visiting nurse technique which reduces the cost even further.

Mr. BALDINGER. We don't have that but we do have the provision for medical care both in the doctor's office and at the home when necessary.

Mr. CURTIS. You are the first group that I can recall to come forward to give us this kind of insight. I am very sincere when I tell you that I commend you. Obviously we reach a different conclusion on this but I am hopeful that this kind of information will be gathered together. Again, I must end on a critical note, that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be gathering this kind of information and should know something about this. Apparently they have done little or nothing toward gathering the data. They are simply trying to put forward a program which they hope will work.

Mr. OSSOFSKY. While I don't want to argue with you about the kinds of statistics available from HEW-I am sure there are better spokesmen for them than I and I am sure they are quite competent to defend themselves-I think this should be the point to bring to your attention the validity of a Federal Commission on Aging.

While this is not before the House at this moment, this is not what we are here to discuss, perhaps some of the specific statistics dealing with the needs of the elderly might well be brought together for I am sure they do exist in HEW and made available to you in others were there an area within the Government that could deal with the specific problems and constantly make these kinds of things available.

I believe that one of the areas that we have to pay more attention to with the senior citizen in the course of dealing with the great multitude of needs is the availability of information and the paying attention to that through some centralized area within our Federal Government.

Mr. CURTIS. I tend to share that but what I worry about is these commissions as they are being appointed today turn out not to be objective study groups but propaganda groups.

We have it in this proposal. I fear this. I could go right along with you and say that is exactly what we need if we had a little more discipline in the executive department toward being objective rather than being propagandists.

I don't want to create any more of these propaganda agencies, we have enough of them spending taxpayer's money to put through programs without doing objective research.

Mr. OSSOFSKY. Congressman, I am happy to find us in agreement in some areas. I don't want to get into argument with you. I am sure that the Congress can in its wisdom develop a procedure for gathering information and making it available to itself and the public with sufficient safeguards for the Congress and for the public. Mr. CURTIS. Thank you.

Mr. KEOGH (presiding). Mr. Ullman?

Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Baldinger, I consider your testimony especially valuable because I think it is a very, very fine case study in depth of an average group of Americans reaching old age and geared specifically to this problem that is facing this committee here, the problem of health in old age.

I think that your contribution here has been, indeed, great and for those who say there aren't case studies and that this material is not available, I hope that you will always be available to further expand on this very fine case study that you have offered.

Mr. BALDINGER. Thank you.

Mr. KEOGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Ullman. I join with you in those sentiments. Are there any other questions? Mr. Alger of Texas?

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Baldinger, I was heartened at the beginning of your statement because you started out with a self-help program; that is, as a result of your collective bargaining between management and union.

Then, of course, you ended up throwing it on the Federal Government, so my hopes were dashed. I am not surprised.

Mr. BALDINGER. I am sorry but those are the facts.

Mr. ALGER. I understand. I understand we are going to disagree. I am not afraid of that because out of our disagreement we can work out compromises that may do the trick. You do not want charity. As I look at what you are asking, wherein does what you are asking for today differ from a gift?

Mr. BALDINGER. I think we are considering here a problem not only for today but for tomorrow as well. I would like to know that when I retire I will not be beset by these hazards, that I will not have to worry about what will happen to me in retirement when I am past 65.

I am perfectly ready, therefore, to participate today in a nationwide program of self-help. I am still in favor of self-help but I think we ought to extend this on a national basis.

I think it is the only rational way of coping with the problem that we have because of its size and the universal hazard it presents to all the American people.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Baldinger, where does the amount to be given, without any pay in, to the millions over 65 to be covered differ from a gift? That is my question.

Mr. BALDINGER. I think it will come and willingly so from the pockets of the people who are today wage earners and who are supporting, under tremendous difficulties, aged parents, relatives, and

so on.

I think the kind of program that we are calling for permits the provision of hospital care and ultimately we hope complete medical care as well to older people in a method that does not create a strain on the family relationships.

I think there, too, we are dealing with an element that perhaps. is an intangible to some of us but nevertheless something of great value, particularly to older people.

That when they become a strain on the youngsters, when they are presenting a breaking load on the budgets of their children, that inevitably this will lead to hostilities and emotional disturbances between generations.

We think these are hazards, too, that are in this picture that would be dealt with through a system of national nationwide social insurance. Mr. OSSOFSKY. Might I comment on this?

Mr. ALGER. Do vou recall my question?

Mr. OSSOFSKY. Yes, I do.

Mr. ALGER. Because I am not disagreeing with these nice statements. I asked a simple question which I think you can defend really.

Mr. OSSOFSKY. You want to know how we differentiate between this and a gift. I don't believe we are giving anybody a gift. I think we are paying back a debt. We who are not yet 65 owe a debt to the senior citizens who built the country.

I don't think that we are giving them a gift. I think it is about time. we realize that we have an obligation to the people who brought us to the point where our country is the greatest in the world.

This is not in my opinion a matter of giving anybody anything for nothing. I think it is an obligation that we have as citizens to those citizens who came before us.

It has to do with building something that will mean that we are paying back indeed for the heritage that we inherited. Now, I don't

look upon this as giving something away just out of the goodness of my heart.

I think I owe it to the other people who went before me. I think that is part of the American way. I don't consider this at all something new, something strange, something un-American.

On the contrary, what disturbs me, sir, is the fact that we are looking to say that taking care of our parents, taking care of our oldest citizenry suddenly is to be put into the category of doing something special for people who didn't deserve it or who didn't have the guts or brains to take care of themselves.

If we take a look at where these people went, where our parents came from and how they built the country to the point where we are today we will see that they lived through some depressions, two World Wars, brought up families, built organizations, helped mold the country to the place where it is today.

I certainly do not look upon this as a gift at all.

Mr. ALGER. I welcome the opportunity to do something for these people. I think that is the problem that we face in the Congress in waiting 6 years, for example, since the Forand bill was discussed. We have waited and discussed since the Forand bill was discussedwould that it have been enacted-discussed constantly from the point of view of what do we owe, what do we give.

We are not giving anything. We owe a debt and it is time we replace it with some understanding with heart. We are facing not just the financial problem. We are facing a social problem and a human problem.

Mr. BALDINGER. I might say that while I associate myself completely with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Ossofsky, I think we should be careful not to wander into an attitude that says the idea of giving a gift to an older person is something reprehensible.

I think it is entirely in keeping with our sense of propriety. I would not regard it as a calamity if we said it is giving, although I don't think in this case it is a gift.

Mr. ALGER. I appreciate your view. I think between the two of you now that is as lucid an explanation and gives me an opportunity from the heart to tell you gentlemen while I look at you that I am among a great group of people, and I think we outnumber you but I may be wrong, however. That what you have just said is a very immoral statement as I see it because you are transferring a responsibility that is a human being's responsibility onto the back of the Government and those people who did not create that responsibility are compulsorily forced to shoulder another's burden.

I recognize you can do it if you can get enough votes and force this type of legislation on these people who have been providing for themselves and their own. You say, and I respect your view, that we owe this to the older person.

I say on the contrary we owe nothing as a Federal Government to our older citizens. Indeed, we owe them the self-respect to provide as they have always provided, as my forebears, and they have been people of very modest income, have been able to provide for themselves.

This is a difference of viewpoint. I grant you yours. I hope you will grant me mine. What you are doing, gentlemen, is saying that

age 65,

we go now from the private field-and this is just the first step, I realize that hospital care does not do the trick, you know that, we have to go in to include the doctor's field, we have to lower the or throw away the age restriction because you can't stop there, I will be the first to say that, then you have medical services, drugs and all the rest and throw away your age limit.

That would be my forecast. Be that as it may, you are transferring a private obligation which some of us still think is private even if we are wrong in your eyes, to Government in making this compulsory. My question is this: As far as I am concerned, this is going to put you on the defensive considerably among the people you represent, particularly the young people coming into the work force.

If I understand you and contradict me if I am wrong, this is what you now are going to place on your younger workers coming onto the work force. Number one, a higher tax which is a first dollar tax from which there is no escape. You are going to force them to pay it for 45 years or more before they can draw any down and because it only covers a fraction of the hospital and medical services they have to take out other medical programs present and future to protect themselves during that period unless you can get another Federal program to cover that.

You are going to force these people you represent, of moderate income, to do this for the wealthy, the very wealthy, the people in the middle income, you are going to do this to your workers, to force them to help people who can well pay for it themselves at that time, and they are those people who have paid in nothing.

Your people are going to have to pay for the wealthy over 65. If that is not enough, you are going to ask your workers, the new entrants to pick up the tab of $330 billion which is the amount that this program is in default, the total social security insurance program.

These are the facts. I realize you disagree with me but I want you to understand why many are opposed. Because we are against helping people with medical services? No, gentlemen, because I think you are taking away the lifeblood of the finest medical system in the history of the world by introducing for the first time in this way in compulsion a Social Security medical program that can lead only to full coverage regardless of age, complete medical services.

That happens to be my belief. I actually hope I am wrong. Where do you disagree with what I have just said?

Mr. BALDINGER. I think we disagree probably all the way through. Mr. ALGER. All right, in what specifics?

Mr. BALDINGER. You say that we are going to place on younger workers an additional burden to cover

Mr. ALGER. I gave you four new burdens. We can take them one by one.

Mr. BALDINGER. I will say this, perhaps we don't disagree but I suspect we do. If you are making the point that the current tax system relating not only to social security but income taxes and all other sources of Federal revenue require drastic revision then I am all with

you.

We are in favor of a reduction of the tax load on the low income people and an increase if necessary on the higher brackets.