Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

OBJECTIONS

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 91⁄2 percent.

This

4. Payroll taxes are now paid on the first $4,800 of annual earnings. legislation would require payment on the first $6,000 of annual earnings, increasing the taxpayers' burden. If you are self-employed you will pay 7% 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.

T. ERIC REYNOLDS, M.D.,

DAN O. 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.

CALIFORNIA CONGRESSMEN

Address all letters to House Office Building, Washington 25, D.C.

[blocks in formation]

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,

A. NEMSER, M.D.

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.

Dr. E. L. GORDON.

BROOKLYN, N.Y., February 25, 1959.

Congressman FORAND,
Washington, D.C.

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,

B. O. SAPHRO.

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.

Dr. CHARLES L. SULLY.

[The Miami Herald, Mar. 22, 1959],

LAWMAKER SPURNS COMMITTEE

REPRESENTATIVE FORAND SAYS HIS HANDS ARE TIED

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.

Congressman A. J. FORAND,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., July 14, 1959.

Strongly support your bill to extend medical care to social security recipients.

Dr. MURRAY ABOWITZ, M.D.

VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
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,

WARREN B. SMITH, M.D.

Mrs. ESTHER T. SMITH.

STATEMENT BY WORKMEN'S BENEFIT FUND OF THE U.S.A., BROOKLYN, N.Y., IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 4700

One of the most important and pressing problems which this country faces today is finding the means to insure a life of dignity and decency for our oldest citizens.

The number of Americans over 65 years of age has been steadily mounting. While at the turn of the century there were only 3 million over 65, today it is estimated that there are more than 14 million.

We have a social and moral obligation to provide the means whereby the elderly can enjoy a decent standard of living free from constant anxiety over what will happen in times of serious illness.

By increasing the contribution rate of employers and employees under the social security tax program by one-fourth of 1 percent and of the self-employed by three-eighths of 1 percent, we could provide insurance against the cost of hospital, nursing home, and surgical services to all those eligible for old-age and survivors insurance benefits. This slight increase in cost to the employee during his earning period would provide necessary protection for him during his years of retirement.

The workmen's benefit fund, which was founded in 1884 to provide mutual aid in times of illness and death, has long urged that some form of health insurance be provided for the elderly. The bill introduced by Representative Aime J. Forand of Rhode Island (H.R. 4700) would provide for this type of coverage. At the same time, it would not conflict with the private insurance companies or the nonprofit insurance groups, many of which have shown a reluctance to extend their coverage to persons over the age of 65.

The workmen's benefit fund urges favorable action by the House Ways and Means Committee at this session of the Congress.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SETTLEMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, NEW YORK, N.Y., PREPARED BY FERN M. COLBORN, SECRETARY FOR SOCIAL EDUCATION AND ACTION

The National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers recommends legislation to strengthen the Social Security Act.

Social Security is a major stabilizing force in our economy. The overwhelming majority of the American people accept the basic principles underlying our social insurance system.

Since 1935, the social insurance program in the United States has been extended in the areas of old age and survivorship, both by upgrading the benefit provisions and notably by extending coverage to new types of employment. The first step has been taken to use social insurance to assure income to those who are permanently and totally disabled. In the important areas of illness and partial disability, however, practically nothing has been done except for veterans. Nor has the concept of risks to family security been broadened to include the impact of medical care on family budgets and the cost of bringing up a large family.

The National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers therefore recommends legislation:

(1) That the old-age, survivors and disability insurance program be strengthened by

(a) making payments more adequate;

(b) increasing the amount of earnings which can be credited toward benefits to keep in line with current trends;

(c) providing benefits for disabled, insured persons of any age, and their dependents;

(d) extending coverage to earners still excluded;

(e) further extending the base pay covered.

(2) That hospitalization costs for beneficiaries of old-age, survivors and disability insurance be covered through the insurance program.

(3) That Federal funds be made available for the training of old-age survivors and disability insurance staffs, so that sufficient personnel with proper background is available. Enough qualified personnel is essential to the effective administration of the program.

(4) That the self-sustaining insurance principles of our social security program continue to pay for increased benefits.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mason.

Mr. MASON. Dr. Larson, and Dr. Swartz, you have been forthright and specific in your testimony to this committee on the problem confronting us.

Dr. Larson, you have outlined in your statement what is being done all over America on this problem to solve it and while it has not been solved as yet, you have made great strides in the last 2 or 3 years in bringing about a solution.

You even acknowledge that our committee member, Mr. Forand, accomplished a great deal and has accomplished a great deal in that he has stimulated, initiated these movements that are going around, all over this country to help solve this problem.

Yesterday we had the testimony from three different States as to what those States had already accomplished in this line.

I think that is constructive testimony for this committee to receive. Now, Dr. Swartz, in my opinion, you analyzed the problem for us quite well in a sensible way from practical experience rather than from any fancy, theoretical experience, and that in my estimation is very fine testimony.

Now, referring to this questionnaire that was presented to us, I did not notice any reference in that questionnaire at all to a Republican Congressman or a Democratic Congressman. That questionnaire, I know, I do not know who invented it or presented it, or who sent it out, but it is patterned directly upon the practical and efficient politics that COPE, as we know it now, engages in, it is practically a parallel there to their program, and I know from experience what that program of COPE means.

So I find no fault and I see no wrong in other organizations presenting their views to the voters of America because unless they do this America of ours will soon be a socialist, welfare, labor-government and then all the progress that we have made in 150 years will be stopped and we will have a duplicate of what England had a few years ago and what Russia has today, a government at the top rather than at the bottom.

So I compliment both you gentlemen on your testimony today.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORAND (presiding). Mr. King will inquire.

Mr. KING. Doctor, is it true that your organization has filed under the lobbying statutes with the Clerk of the House, and also filed a letter of protest at being obliged to file with the Clerk?

Dr. LARSON. I am not familiar with that, sir.

Mr. STETLER. We filed under protest, that is correct, sir.
Mr. KING. Why do you protest?

Mr. STETLER. We question it because of some of the wording in the Lobbying Act and some of the decisions whether or not we are required under the law to file, but we do file regularly and have for

many years.

Mr. KING. But you have always protested?

Mr. STETLER. We have for the last 2 years, I know; yes.

Mr. KING. Is it true that this questionnaire presented by Mr. Forand was sanctioned and circulated officially by the American Medical Association, or any branch of it?

Mr. STETLER. The questionnaire was not circulated. It was used officially by the AMA, there is no question about that.

« PreviousContinue »