Page images

Mr. FORAND. You do not think the participants are in a position to contribute something to these deliberations?

Dr. Larson. Yes, indeed, and I think in time the joint council is going to give very serious consideration to taking in many other groups to solve this problem.

Mr. FORAND. I hope that thought becomes a reality because, as I have said before, and I think I said that to you last year, I am anxious for all interested groups to work together on this program. I do not believe that it should be limited to a little group here, a little group there, because that is what we have been doing for years and we have accomplished very little as a result of that.

If we could get all groups together to exchange ideas and then taking the best point of each suggestion that is made we may reach the solution that we are after.

Dr. LARSON. I agree with that.

Mr. FORAND. Now, Doctor, I suppose you recognize this little pamphlet?

Dr. LARSON. Yes.

Mr. FORAND. The facts about the Forand bill, 15 questions you want answered. I have read this over several times now. This is put out by AMA. I find that there is some truth, some untruth, some half truths contained in it.

I would like to know who wrote this, if you are free to tell methat is not the same pamphlet you have in your hand, not quite the same pamphlet.

Mr. STETLER. The one you have, Congressman, is the one that was put out last year. This one that Ór. Larson has is substantially the same, but it was prepared by the staff of the American Medical Association based on the policies and pronouncements of our house of delegates.

Mr. FORAND. You mean the public relations staff?
Mr. STETLER. Part of the staff; yes, sir.

Mr. FORAND. I understand the association has been expending considerable money on the public relations activities and has hired a California firm to lead it, and taking some of our high type reporters on the Hill to work on it.

Of course, I don't blame you for that. You are entitled to do anything you see fit and proper.

But I was interested in trying to find out who it was that prepared this pamphlet because there is misinterpretation in several instances, the same as is contained in this other publication here issued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Of course, I have a pile of material issued by the association, including "The Pill That Could Change America," which deals with the so-called British socialized medical system.

I am wondering if whoever wrote this would not have also been doing the right thing if he had also referred to the other side of the picture, rather than all of the bad side of the English system.

Now I am one of those who admits that when the Britsh plan was inaugurated it was full of flaws and they had a lot of trouble. They have it perfected pretty well now to the point where I understand even the most conservative in England would not want to abolish their system of medicine any more than we would want to abolish social security in this country.

If reference is made to some of the things stated in this book, “The Doctor Business," written by Richard Carter or the article in Harper's magazine, May 1959_issue, that was written by John Cook on "Socialized Medicine Is 10 Years Old, What We Can Learn From England's Experience," I think we might have had perhaps a little different picture.

Now, Lord Moore, personal physician to Sir Winston Churchill for many years, and one of the older statesmen of British medicine wrote this:

If consultants were asked whether they desired to go back to the old days, I believe the overwhelming majority would prefer the condition of today.

That is part of this article in Harper's magazine for May.

I suggest if you have not read it, that you do so and compare it with the statements made in the pamphlet “The Pill That Could Change America.”

I could go on indefinitely, but I have taken up enough time. I give way to some of the others right now.

I thank you, Dr. Larson.
Dr. LARSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FORAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have inserted at this point in the record a number of letters received by me in support of H.R. 4700. (The correspondence received follows:)

THORN WOOD, N.Y., April 11, 1959. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE FORAND: I wish to say that the American Medical Association does not represent the opinion of all physicians regarding your medical care bill. Such coverage as you sponsor is absolutely essential and we are so advising our patients. Sincerely,


BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF., July 5, 1959. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FORAND: I'm enclosing for your delight a neat piece of literature. Perhaps you have seen it.

(1) At the psychiatric convention recently, a well-known British psychiatrist reported that England is doing an excellent job in the field of mental hygiene.

(2) A physician from the University of Colorado, who has just returned from England, thinks that the English people enjoy good medical service and are pleased with their medical system.

If you like to see these sources, I'll be glad to send them to you.
Best wishes.
Cordially yours,



San Francisco, July 1, 1959.


H.R. 4700, the Forand bill—another socialized medicine scheme-will be heard July 13 before the House Ways and Means Committee in Washington. Provides hospital, nursing home, and surgical services to eligible social security recipients. Financed by a large increase in social security taxes.

If we are to avoid this socialization, you must (a) communicate with the California members of the House Ways and Means Committee and its chairman and your Congressman (listed below); (b) urge other interested groups: e.g., dentists, pharmacists, nurses, technicians, assistants, businessmen, etc., to like

wise write; and (c) most important, urge hospital executives and trustees to express their opposition.


1. This legislation is only the opening wedge. It is easier to socialize a step at a time—this is another step in the direction of socialized medicine.

2. The Federal Government would take social security taxes on a compulsory basis from almost the entire working population and use these taxes to pay hospital, surgical, and nursing costs for about 13 million eligible recipients.

3. This legislation would raise payroll taxes on employees and employers and the self-employed. By 1968 the combined compulsory payroll tax on employees and employers would increase to 942 percent.

4. Payroll taxes are now paid on the first $4,800 of annual earnings. This legislation would require payment on the first $6,000 of annual earnings, increasing the taxpayers' burden. If you are self-employed you will pay 748 percent or $427.50 per year-not tax deductible

and this is only the beginning. 5. In these times when many employers are caught between rising costs and shrinking profits this additional tax may well be the final blow that will send many a small businessman into bankruptcy.

6. Federal Government will establish the schedule of fees under which doctors will be required to practice.

7. Government, under this legislation, will decide which doctors may and which may not do surgery.

Please act immediately. The hearings commence July 13.
By direction of the council:

President, California Medical Association.

Dan 0. KILROY, M.D.,

Chairman, Commission on Public Policy. Mail all letters to addressee at: House Office Building, Washington 25, D.C. Ways and Means Committee, Wilbur D. Mills, chairman; Cecil R. King, California member; James B. Utt, California member.

Address all letters to House Office Building, Washington 25, D.C.
Clem Miller
John J. McFall

Joe Holt
Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson B. F. Sisk

Clyde Doyle
John E. Moss, Jr.
Charles M. Teague

Glenard P. Lipscomb
William S. Mailliard Harlan Hagen

George A. Kasem
John F. Shelley

Gordon L. McDonough James Roosevelt
John F. Baldwin
Donald L. Jackson

Harry R. Sheppard
Jeffery Cohelan
Craig Hosmer

D. S. (Judge) Saund
George P. Miller
Chet Holifield

Bob Wilson
J. Arthur Younger

H. Allen Smith Charles S. Gubser

Edgar W. Hiestand

MIAMI BEACH, FLA., March 22, 1959. In re Forand bill. Hon. AIME FORAND, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: Needless to say I am for what you stand for, as I wrote in my letters to the CIO-AFL.

May I suggest you poll the opponents of the bill and determine whether their opposition is personal or are they sounding off for the organizations they represent like the insurance crowd or the AMA. Confidentially most of those who appear against the bill are themselves beneficiaries of the social security system and it is unlikely they personally oppose the Forand bill. Good luck to you and God bless you. Sincerely,


WOOSTER, OHIO. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE A. FORAND: I was delighted to hear that you are fighting to get hospital insurance within social security for 65-plusers. I'd like to tell you a story. My dad was a dentist for 44 years. He made good money. He was unlucky enough to have contracted high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis, etc. Over the period of decades he was hospitalized, he was forced to retire. Now dad was a good moneymaker. He saved money during the war too, but if you wish to stay alive and you are chronically ill you must continue to pay, pay, pay, to stay alive. Finally the fatal blow, dad contracted cancer of the bowel. This exhausted all his savings plus depleting mine. Dad got scanty help from his Dental Relief Association (American Dental Association). Dad went on aid for aged because of his condition. It was physically impossible to take care of him at home. My wife had him home for 1 month, he couldn't control his bowels, etc. I came home from work during lunch hour, at night it was a rat race. One night in particular I gave dad a bell to ring if he needed me. I didn't sleep a half hour that night. Because of the inadequate aid for aged help and my savings are so low, I went to the Jewish Community who helped me out. Now the cold blooded doctors say we'll give you help, charity help, but it turns one's insides out to accept charity as we are forced to. Medicine isn't set up today to take care of chronically ill old folks. Of course, if I paid $20 a day it would have worked out; that's ludicrous. Who can spend almost as much as one makes on medical bills? I borrowed and stole from "Peter to pay Paul," etc. Everyone gives you sympathy including the M.D.'s. That cuts no ice. The only thing is medical insurance for old folks. The AMA, etc., say that it's socialism. Well I say, "Nuts" to them. In the first place, to continually exhaust the meager savings of most old people after a lifetime of struggle, raising a family and then having to fritter it away on overpriced medicines. hospitals, doctors, is crazy. Who can afford this except 5 or 10 percent of the old folks, or less. Fight, fight hard for your Forand bill. The medics and insurance companies should be ashamed of having made no provision for this condition. Since medicine is a joke in this situation. The doctors know nothing to speak of about geriatrics except to give it a name. Unfortunately most elderly illnesses are catastrophies which no one can foresee. How much it will cost or when it will strike and how long it will last. Needless to say old folks look at this with stark terror, they don't say much, they are mute. Their brains are going bad and they are helpless. A catastrophic illness is bad enough during any part of your life but after 65, well— Insurance and only compulsory contributing social security will do any good. Buttonhole every Congressman and Senator on this. Don't give up. Get this bill through.


BROOKLYN, N.Y., February 25, 1959. Congressman FORAND, Washington, D.O.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Want to let you know that I am very much in favor of the Forand bill for medical and dental care for the aged, under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The policies of the AMA have always opposed progressive changes. They even opposed the U.S. Public Health Service when it was established. Best wishes to you for the success of your bill. Respectfully,


NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLA., April 30, 1959. DEAR MR. AIME J. FORAND: God bless you for your fine work on your worthy bill for the aged under social security. The delaying actions of the chamber of commerce, and the AMA, and insurance companies must be discouraging to you, but, we know that you have the courage, knowledge, and persistancy to put over your Forand bill.

You will have the blessing of all the American people for your fine work. Keep up the good work.


(The Miami Herald, Mar. 22, 1959);



WASHINGTON (UPI).-Representative Aime J. Forand, Democrat, of Rhode Island, said Saturday he has refused to serve as chairman of a House Ways and Means subcommittee because it was barred from recommending improvements in the social security program.

Forand, No. 2 Democrat on the full committee, told a reporter that not only had he turned down Chairman Wilbur D. Mills offer to head the subcommittee but declined to be a member of the panel.

He is the only member of the 25-man taxwriting committee not assigned to any subcommittee.

The incident apparently was the opening shot in what may be a bitter battle over organized labor's drive to provide health benefits for persons on social security rolls.

The bill, sponsored by Forand, would in effect give most people over 65 paid-up hospital and surgical insurance for life.

The measure, rated virtually a "must" by the AFL-CIO, is bitterly opposed by the American Medical Association as a step toward socialized medicine.

Forand began pressing Mills last year to set up a subcommittee empowered to hold hearings on it and to make recommendations to the full committee.

Instead, Mills split the committee into three subcommittees, with power only to "study and investigate" the administration of social security, internal revenue and foreign trade laws by executive departments and agencies.

The Arkansas Democrat's action was endorsed by an overwhelming margin in a closed-door meeting of the committee several weeks ago, it was learned.

“I refuse to serve on a subcommittee that has no power," Forand said.

He said all the subcommittees can do is investigate the agencies and report facts to the full committee. They can't consider legislation and can't even make any recommendations, Forand complained.

Forand said that as sponsor of the health benefits plan "my hands would have been tied” had he accepted Mills' offer.

Los ANGELES, CALIF., July 14, 1959. Congressman A. J. FORAND, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Strongly support your bill to extend medical care to social security re cipients.



Temple, Tex., July 14, 1959. Hon. AIME FORAND, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. FORAND: I would like to tell you that Mrs. Smith and myself are extremely interested in the successful passage of your bill H.R. 4700.

From my experience as chief of a 256-bed medical service in an 800-bed Veterans' Administration hospital, I realize, in a way that few are able, the great need for definite legislation to help poor people get some assistance in procuring hospital, medical, and surgical aid when necessary. We shall look forward to favorable action on the Forand bill. Very truly yours,


« PreviousContinue »