entire time. So if you will follow that practice and try to limit your

statements.

As I understand, we determined that the senior citizens are past age 65. If any of you attempt to speak who are younger than that, I may want to see your birth certificates. We will assume that this afternoon that the senior citizens themselves have the floor. My staff tells me that a number of senior citizens have contacted them about being heard. There is a Mr. E. B. Ringham, who is president of the Senior Citizens Council of Minneapolis. We want to hear Mr. Ringham. We have his full statement. I would ask that he not read his statement to us but he very briefly summarize his statement.

STATEMENT OF E. B. RINGHAM, PRESIDENT, SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL OF MINNEAPOLIS

Mr. RINGHAM. Thank you, Senator Long. I want to thank you first for the opportunity of being here and speaking to you. I am speaking in behalf of the Senior Citizens Council of Minneapolis of which I am the president, which is an association of 36 senior citizens clubs having a total membership of over 3,000 senior citizens. I am representing the club to present our views on the subject of the so-called King-Anderson bill before Congress. We took a vote and adopted a resolution some time ago favoring that bill and sent a copy of the resolution to the committee and to the Congress. We believe that that is a practical way of handling this problem.

As you say, I have prepared a paper which is already on file with your committee but if I may read just a portion of it, Senator.

We are aware of the fact that some opponents of the bill claim that many retired citizens who are now receiving social security benefits have ample means and do not need this hospitilization benefit through social security. That is true, but, according to a survey conducted in Minnesota 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 and retirement.

The survey also showed that 55 percent of all the people over 65 years of age had incomes of less than $2,000 per year, and 33 percent had a net worth of less than $2,500. I want to say also that we do oppose the need test.

Reference has been made this morning to the Kerr-Mills Act which has not been activated in Minnesota. But, as I understand it, in order for a beneficiary to take advantage of that he must practically sign a pauper's oath. We protest against that. We prefer that deductions from their earnings made during the earning years be accumulated as insurance and cover hospital and medical need in their retirement in the same way as retirement pensions are accumulated now under social security.

It has also been charged that the King-Anderson bill, by those who oppose that bill, there are many that are not covered by social security but social security has been expanded and no doubt will be expanded further to include those who are not now covered. As a matter of fact, 90 percent of the workers in the United States are now under social security. We do not think it is fair either to say that this King bill is a step toward socialized medicine. There is nothing in this bill which would prevent any beneficiary from selecting the doctor of his

choice or the hospital of his choice, and the fact that the beneficiary must stand the first $90 of this hospital expense under this bill will prevent any so-called chiseling. We realize that there always will 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 hospital and medical expenses after retirement with the help that will be provided through the social security, under the provisions of the King-Anderson bill. In the brief that I have filed with you I have quoted from a number of institutions and persons who have expressed their approval of this bill. Perhaps I better not take time to read that, Senator. It is in the copy, or may I read some of those quotes?

Senator LONG. I don't want to take too much time on it. I might point out to you, as you know and as you have indicated in your statement, that actually this committee is not a legislative committee. The problems you are discussing are certainly of interest to all of us but that problem has now been considered by the committee, the recommendations have gone in and the proposed legislation, as you have indicated is now before the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee of the House. As I say, we are interested in that, but perhaps there are other problems that we should turn to that would be more beneficial to this committee since we have already passed on that particular phase of the program.

Mr. RINGHAM. There are a number of quotes in this statement that I have submitted and I hope the committee will take note of them and I believe they may be influential in your consideration. Thank you. Senator LONG. Thank you, Mr. Ringham.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Ringham follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF E. B. RINGHAM, SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL OF THE MINNEAPOLIS AREA, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

First, I want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you. I am E. B. Ringham, and I represent the Senior Citizens Council of Minneapolis, of which I am president. The Senior Citizens Council is an association of 36 senior citizens clubs in Minneapolis, having a total membership of more than 3,000 senior citizens.

We wish to present our views on hospitalization for our aged citizens. Our association unanimously adopted a resolution favoring the enactment of the so-called King bill (H.R. 4222) which was before the Congress at its last session, and we filed with Leo H. Irwin, chief counsel of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives in Congress, a written statement of our views.

We are aware of the fact that some opponents of the bill claim that many retired persons who now are receiving social security benefits, have ample means and do not need hospitalization 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 precent of the retired do need financial help to take care of hospital and medical expenses after retirement. The survey also showed that 55 percent of all people over 65 years of age have incomes of less than $2,000 per year, and that 33 percent had a net worth of less than $2,500.

We oppose the idea of a "need" test. We submit that retired senior citizens do not wish to be treated as charity patients, but prefer that deductions from their earnings made during the earning years be accumulated as insurance to cover or partly cover hospital and medical needs in their retirement years, in the same way as retirement pensions are accumulated now under social security. It is also charged by those who oppose the King bill, that there are many who are not covered by social security. That is true, but social security has been 78681-62-pt. 5———7

expanded and no doubt can be and will be expanded further to cover those who are not covered. As a matter of fact, 90 percent of workers in the United States are now under social security, according to information we have received.

We do not think it is fair to say that this King bill would be a step toward socialized medicine. As we understand it, there is nothing in this bill which will prevent the beneficiary from selecting the doctor of this choice and the hospital of his choice, and the fact that the beneficiary must pay the first $90 of his hospital expenses, 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 through social security under the provisions outlined in the King bill.

In further support of our contention that hospitalization and medical benefits for those over 65 years of age should be financed through the social security system, as insurance paid for by the beneficiaries during their working years, I beg to quote from a few statements by various organizations, institutions and individuals of note:

AFL and CIO.-"It is our conviction that the established social security system is the most appropriate method through which the Government can assist aged citizens with problems of financial medical care."

American Nurses Association.-"Certainly, insurance coverage against the cost of illness which may occur after retirement, which insurance can be paid for during the working years, would be less costly to the public than tax-supported public relief for health care, a dependency which is distasteful and degrading to the citizens of this country."

Governors' conference (52d annual meeting, 1960).—"Resolved, That Congress be urged to enact legislation providing for a health insurance plan for persons 65 years of age and older to be financed principally through the contributory plan and framework of the OASDI, system."

The

Business Week.-"The health needs of the aged can be met only by themselves ⚫ when they are young or by other younger people who are still working. only way to handle their health problem is to spread the risks and costs widely. That can be done through the social security system to which employers and employees contribute regularly."

Life magazine from editorial, April 25, 1960.-"The least burdensome method of insurance is for the whole society to spread the costs over the whole life cycle. The cheapest and most logical way of doing this is by extending the existing system of social security. This aid need not be socialized medicine, as some opponents claim, since patients select their own doctors and hospitals."

The New York Times from editorial, May 10, 1960.-"There are many positive advantages in using social security. For example, it would avoid what amounts to a 'means test' for eligibility-something abhorrent to Americans. Also, it would take effect nationally at once, while State cooperation might be far from unanimous and also slow in coming.'

The Washington Post from editorial, February 20, 1960.-"While a man is employed, he can enjoy the protection of some sort of group or private insurance program to cover medical and hospital bills. When he retires he may no longer enjoy such protection; yet, this is the time when he will need it most, when the cost of such private insurance is prohibitively high. The McNamara subcommittee came to the conclusion that this problem should have top priority for legislative consideration, and recommended in its report an expansion of the OASDI. That the American Medical Association would offer its usual doctrinaire opposition was to be expected. This is not 'socialized medicine.' It is simply a system that would enable a patient to go to the doctor and hospital of his choice and pay the bills resulting from the care he needs in old age. would enable American men and women to retire in their old age with more security and self-respect."

It

National Council of Jewish Women (January 1960).—“A priority step in expanding our social security system must be the inclusion of medical care benefits for the aging."

Walter Lippmann (in Washington Post, June 16, 1960).-"What is wrong about its being compulsory that a man should insure himself against the needs of his old age? What is so wonderful about a voluntary system under which a man who doesn't save for his old age has to have his doctor bills and his hospital bills paid for by his children or public welfare funds?"

Basil C. MacLean, M.D., former president, National Blue Cross Association."A lifetime's experience has led me at last to conclude that the costs of care of the aged cannot be met, unaided, by the mechanism of insurance or prepayment as they exist today."

Senator LONG. There is one gentleman I wanted to introduce, a man responsible for the work of this committee. He is the man, the head of our staff, the other members work under him. All of these committee hearings are set up under his direction. There is no more dedicated man to our senior citizens than this man. He flew here today to be here today. He is leaving tonight to attend other meetings in the East, but he has done a grand job for this committee and I think you people would like to meet him. He is the staff director of the Senate Committee on the Aging, Bill Reidy. He may look over 65 but I don't think he is that old.

Mr. REIDY. I am not supposed to participate in this hearing, but I would like to say that this is one of the greatest shows of interest that we have had in our hearings throughout the country, so I think we should thank you people of Minneapolis.

Senator LONG. Mr. Roy Luttrell has asked for a minute or two. We would be happy to hear from him at this time.

Mr. Roy Luttrell, would you step up, please.

STATEMENT OF ROY LUTTRELL

Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Senator and friends, I think I might say the vast majority of Americans have come to realize the importance of insurance against catastrophic financial losses as a necessity of modern life, and the most important domestic issue before the American Nation at this time is how to finance adequate insurance, hospital insurance, for about half of the 17 million citizens over 65. There will be 18 million in 1963. More than half of them have incomes less than $1,000 a year. That's $83 a month and the average social security pension check is $74 per month. Less than half of these people have health insurance of any kind but they have much greater need for hospital care than younger people. Private insurance has tried to meet this need but has succeeded only with individuals in the higher income brackets who can pay the high cost of their high-risk coverage. Blue Cross is canceling out its older policyholders by raising the rates and reducing the coverage. Half of the over 65 aged are a high-risk group with incomes so low that private insurance cannot give them the adequate coverage at a price they can pay.

Old age assistance is not the answer. It is degrading to the thrifty individuals who have to prove how poor they are and sign a pauper's oath to qualify for its benefit. It encourages pauperism and requires an army of welfare workers to administrate it. It is financed from general taxes, from our State and National, and its costs are very great and steadily increasing. The Kerr-Mills law is financed from general taxes and extends public charity to a few more people in addition to those on old age assistance and on similar terms. Recipients of its benefits must prove that they are indigent and sign an oath similar to the old-age assistance program. It adds to the increasing drain on Federal and State taxes and penalizes its low-income citizens who must pay these taxes that are used in part to pay the

hospital bills of the indigent for care that some of these poor taxpayers cannot afford for themselves.

The social security plan would be financed entirely from payroll taxes paid by all workers and their employers in industries, which includes nine-tenths of all the workers in the United States. A small percentage of their wages from 25 to 36 cents per week would be collected and put in a fund to pay the major part of their nursing home needs when they are retired. Its benefits would be claimed as a matter of right and not as a matter of indigency or pauperism. This is not a proper plan for dispensing charity. It would not draw on general tax funds. This plan would not introduce socialized medicine and that fact can be proven by a careful reading of the text of the bill by any fair minded or unprejudiced person. Those who fear that this bill will lead to socialized medicine lack facts in the judgment of the American citizenry. They are afraid to touch the people.

The social security law has been in force for 25 years. During that time control of our Government has shifted from one major political party to the other and back again. It has been amended to extend its benefits to more and more workers. Its benefits and its payroll taxes have been increased. It has never failed to meet a payment or obligation that was due. It has never accepted or paid out 1 cent of general taxes. Its cost of admission is about 2 percent. American workers will entrust their payroll savings to this sound institution with full confidence that it will meet every obligation in full and on time. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Luttrell follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY E. LUTTRELL

The vast majority of Americans have come to realize the importance of insurance against catastrophic financial losses as a necessity in modern life. And the most important domestic issue before this nation today is how to finance adequate hospital insurance for about half of the 17 million citizens over age 65. There will be 18 million in 1963. More than half of them have income of less than $1,000 a year. That is $83 a month. The average social security pension check is $74.

Less than half of these people have health insurance of any kind but they have much greater need for hospital care than younger people.

Private insurance has tried to meet this need but has succeeded only with individuals in the higher income brackets who can pay the high cost of their high risk coverage.

Blue Cross is canceling out its older policyholders by raising the rates and reducing the coverage. Half of the over 65 aged are a high risk group with incomes so low that private insurance cannot give them adequate coverage at a price they can pay.

Old age assistance is not the answer. It is degrading to thrifty, deserving individuals to have to prove how poor they are and sign a pauper's oath to qualify for its benefits. It encourages pauperism and requires an army of welfare case workers to administer it. It is financed from general taxes from our State and Nation and its costs are very great and steadily increasing.

The Kerr-Mills law is financed from general taxes and extends public charity to a few more people in addition to those on ald age assistance and on similar terms. Recipients of its benefits must prove that they are indigent and sign an oath similar to that of the old age assistance program. It adds to the ever increasing drain on Federal and State taxes and penalizes the thrifty, low income citizens who must help to pay the taxes that are used, in part, to pay hospital bills of the indigent for care that some of these poor taxpayers cannot afford for themselves.

The social security plan (H.R. 4222) would be financed entirely from payroll taxes paid by all workers and their employers in covered industries, which