includes nine-tenths of all workers in the United States. A small percentage of their wages, in amounts ranging from 25 to 36 cents per week, would be collected and put into a fund to pay the major part of their hospital and nursing home needs when they are retired, aged 65. Its benefits would be claimed as a matter of right and not as a matter of indigency or pauperism. This is not a program for dispensing charity. It would not draw on general tax funds.

This plan would not introduce socialized medicine and that fact can be fully proven by a careful reading of the text of the bill (H.R. 4222) by any fairminded and unprejudiced person. Those who fear that this bill will lead to socialized medicine lack faith in the judgment of the informed American citizenry; they are afraid to trust the people.

The social security law has been in force 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 an obligation that was due. It has never accepted or paid out one cent from general taxes. Its cost of administration is less than 2 percent. There has never been a scandal connected with its operation. American workers will entrust their payroll tax savings to this sound institution with full confidence that it will meet every obligation in full and on time.

BLUE CROSS INCREASES RATES ON HOSPITAL INSURANCE AGAIN

"DEAR BLUE CROSS SUBSCRIBER: Effective your next billing date, monthly rates for the Blue Cross contract you now hold (non group 80/20 contract) will be adjusted as follows: Monthly rate, single $9.10; family $16.20.

"MINNESOTA BLUE CROSS."

My last premium payment on my 80/20 family contract was at the rate of $13.95 per month. This will be an advance of $2.25 per month. We assume that the same rates will apply to all non group 80/20 contracts with Blue Cross. This is just another of several periodic increases in the cost of Blue Cross hospital insurance through the past 10 years or more. Blue Cross sent along a little booklet to explain the reasons for the increase which it says, "is based on the actual cost of hospital care.” One page of the booklet shows a tabulation of the variations in medical care costs in 19 cities of the United States and the percentage of increase of such costs from a base period (1947-1949) to 1959.

The above are not exact figures. They are approximate, according to the statistics of the Blue Cross booklet. The tabulation also shows that the percent of increase in medical care costs in 1 year, 1958-59 was more than 10 percent. The booklet gave no indication that the present rate of increase would not continue. This poses a grave problem for the citizens of advancing age who are living on fixed incomes that do not increase with the price index. Write to Minnesota Blue Cross, 2610 University Avenue, St. Paul, 14, Minn. Ask for their booklet "Hospital Costs and Blue Cross Rates."

A number of bills have been introduced in our National Congress to provide health care for the elderly at a cost they will be able to pay. Unfortunately this problem has become an issue of partisan politics and the two parties, at the present time, seem to be deadlocked on the issue.

Shall we provide a system of payroll taxation where the workers contribute small sums during their working years to provide hospital care for their re

tirement years? Shall we insist that aging citizens continue to pay constantly increasing costs for their hospital care in the conventional way until they have reached a state of near pauperism at which point they will be aided by funds provided from general taxation? That question seems to state the issue.

WOULD THE SOCIAL SECURITY HEALTH PLAN INTRODUCE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE? Well, what do we mean by "socialized medicine"? Under a system of socialized medicine the Government owns and operates all hospitals, nursing homes, and other health facilities and employs physicians and surgeons on a salary basis. That is the kind of medical system they have in some European countries and there is a similar system in some provinces of Canada. Our veterans hospitals are probably the nearest approach to that system that we have in this country.

This bill (H.R. 4222) certainly does not propose that the Federal Government or social security agency will own or operate hospitals, nursing homes or employ physicians or surgeons on salary. It will not pay physicians' or surgeons' fees. It specifically says that beneficiaries shall have free choice in selecting their doctors and any nursing home with which there is an agreement to furnish hospital or nursing home services. Federal officials or employees will not exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided or over the selection, tenure or compensation of any officer or employee of any hospital, nursing home or health facility. This plan will not materially affect or change the present doctor-patient relationship or the present system of hospitals, nursing homes, and home health facilities. It may bring about better systems of health services in some of our poorer and more backward States so that elderly citizens may feel free to move or visit from State to State with assurance that adequate facilities will be available to care for their health needs.

The whole system of hospital, nursing home, and home care services provided for by this bill leaves the doctor in charge; as physician, supervisor, and director of every phase of the services without any interference and with no supervision by the Government.

But this plan will not pay the doctor bill. It will not pay the doctor a salary, a fee or anything whatsoever for his services. This is a plan to enable workers to build up, during their years of active life, by small amounts taken from their earnings (less than 25 cents a week), a fund that will insure them at age 65 that the major part of their needs for hospital, nursing home, and home care will be met without disastrous drains on their monetary resources for the rest of their lives. Then the aging citizen can provide, in some other way, to pay his physician or surgeon. This certainly is not socialized medicine.

[H.R. 4222-S. 909]

A. CITIZEN Sr.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY HEALTH PLAN-WILL IT BE COMPULSORY? WHY? As the bill is now written, it will be compulsory for all workers under the social security system. And we want it that way.

The original social security law is a compulsory savings plan. It takes from workers and their employers, in covered industries, small sums during their years of employment and puts them in a fund to provide a pension for the workers when they are old. There is not now much objection to this compulsory savings plan. In fact there is a demand that it be extended to more and more workers. And this is being done. Social security now covers 90 percent of all workers in this country. But because of inflation and rapidly increasing costs of hospital and nursing home care, many retired people are unable to pay for the care that they need.

We have seen many young people, healthy, strong, and self-confident in their youth, who may say, "I don't want social security. I don't want hospital insurance. All I want is the freedom of the United States, and the opportunities that freedom insures, and I can take care of myself; let others do the same." We could admire the physical vigor and self-reliance that prompts such declarations, if experience had not taught us that it is foolhardy. Windstorms, floods, fire, earthquakes, sickness, bad habits, misjudgments, depressions, loss of employment, inflation, and war, all operate to frustrate the aspirations of youth and many fail to provide adequately for the necessities of their retirement years.

We are too humane to let them die in neglect and misery. We can relegate them to the category of beggars and paupers or to be taken care of under the old-age assistance law-and many are there now. And the cost of that system is very great and is growing rapidly. And who pays that cost but you and me as taxpayers, even though many of us are struggling to keep ourselves out of the pauper class?

That is why we say that boastful youth should prove to us that we (or our children), will not have to carry his burden and pay his hospital bill when he is old. We want the youth to pay one-fourth of 1 percent of his earnings, about 25 cents a week, to be kept in a fund to insure him hospital and nursing home care in his retirement years and let him still retain his freedom and his selfrespect.

WOULD THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE BILL, H.R. 4222, PROVIDE BENEFITS FOR RICH PEOPLE WHO DO NOT NEED THEM?

Opponents of the bill often make the statement that "the bill would provide benefits for rich people (even millionaires) who are well able to pay their own hospital bills and that it would leave unprotected many poor people who need help."

This is a subtle appeal to class prejudice. Most people, of course, are not rich. And it is human nature to envy or feel prejudice against those who have more of the world's goods than we ourselves have. This prejudice is felt especially against the "idle rich" who seem to have a liberal share of the good things of life and produce nothing.

There is a subtle inference that under this bill the Government would spend tax money to pay hospital bills for rich people who can take care of themselves while denying help to poor people who need assistance.

Let us lay aside our prejudice against the rich and be fairminded. Let us consider the facts in this case.

In the first place this bill (H.R. 4222) is not intended to provide charity for anyone, rich or poor. It is proposed as a new way for people to provide hospital insurance for themselves in their later years when they usually need it most. They will pay during their working years and receive the benefits in their retirement.

Some well-to-do or relatively rich people work. It is possible for them to earn wages or self-employment income and if they work in industries where the workers pay social security payroll taxes, they will pay such taxes just as other workers do. That would make them eligible for social security benefits which they have earned and paid for. At age 65 they would have a paid-up policy for hospital and nursing home care for the rest of their lives. What's wrong about that? If they work and pay their payroll taxes, they are entitled to the benefits they have worked for and paid for, just like other workers. We think that is fair and just.

In effect the Government would collect small sums (25 or 30 cents per week) from all workers in "covered industries" and put them in the social security trust fund. When a worker who has attained to age 65 and is retired, needs hospital or nursing home care, the Government (social security) would take money from the social security fund and pay his hospital or nursing home bill.

The social security law has been extended several times to cover more and more people. About 90 percent of all workers in this country are now covered by social security. The law will, without doubt, be extended again to cover still more workers and this will reduce the number that must be cared for by private or public charity.

Benefits under this bill would be paid out of funds collected from the workers during their working years. They would not be paid from general taxes or from income taxes but from payroll taxes collected from workers who will

ultimately receive the benefits. The "idle rich"? They will get nothing from this bill. This is for people who work.

Senator LONG. It has been pointed out to me that there are representatives of some groups composed of people who are not 65 but who are dedicated to the problems of the senior citizens. I don't want to limit it entirely to people over 65 but I don't want our younger

people taking over the entire program. We want to hear primarily from the older people but we will hear from some of the younger people who desire to be heard. I do want to come as near as we can to limiting it to 2 minutes so that we can expedite these various people. Some of our staff people will be out in the audience to pick up people who want to speak.

STATEMENT OF A. SCOTT HANCOCK, PRESIDENT, OLD GUARD CLUB OF MINNEAPOLIS

Mr. HANCOCK. My name is A. Scott Hancock, president of Old Guard Club of Minneapolis, an organization of 550 retired men, representing about 150 different vocations. However, I speak as one individual because of club laws which prohibit political discussion as far as the club is concerned, but it is my opinion that at least twothirds of membership are in accord with my thinking.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to present my views in support of the hospital and medical aid bill, better known as the King-Anderson bill H.R. 4222, under the social security structure, for the care of retired citizens. I am convinced that this bill is the answer for protection against the high cost of medical aid for untold thousands of retired people who have had to neglect their much needed medical care because of their low income, though they may own their own home, with high cost of upkeep and taxation, are forced to endure uncertain and miserable conditions in their senior years, because they have been unable to pay for medical aid; especially the widow who has been left to carry on alone, because of her small income, and huge medical expense, is often forced to dispose of the only possession left to her, her home, and is often, yes, very often, placed at the mercy of charity, which must be supported by funds from the public, and is alone and forgotten when she should be enjoying the golden age, and could if this bill is enacted. Gentlemen, figures are and have been available for some time as to the method in which this is to be supported if enacted into law, and that is by the already proven social security system, without any cost to the Government or taxpayer and will do away with many of the new existing charitable organizations and their continuous plea for funds from the public, which is many times very painful, because if treatment can be had at an early stage, much suffering and heartache can be, and will be, avoided and senior years can be spent at home in happiness and peace.

It is, of course, opposed by the AMA and is about to be kicked about like a football by some big interests and politicians, but there are many, many organizations who favor this bill and are anxious to see it enacted into law along with myself.

Senator LONG. Thank you, Mr. Hancock.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND GANYAU, MEMBER, SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL OF MINNEAPOLIS

Mr. GANYAU. I am Raymond Ganyau, I am a member of the Senior Citizens Council of Minneapolis, and one or two senior citizen clubs. We have heard through the day a lot of things said about housing, nursing homes and congregate care homes, and boardinghouses, and

things of that kind, but there has never been anything said about a certain segment of our senior citizen group, and there are a great many of them, and I am talking about the people that are left alone. We will say widows, for example, the family is gone, the husband is gone, they are left with a great large ramshackle house, three or four bedrooms on two floors. They are not physically able to take care of those places, they are not financially able to. They are good candidates for boardinghouses and nursing homes.

We have the couples where one is perfectly healthy and able to do things, but the other is slightly handicapped through health. They also do not have financial means to support the home that they have now. They are not able to take care of maintenance of that home due to physical disabilities. They are forgotten. They are candidates for nursing homes and boardinghouses, and they will get there soon if there isn't a helping hand extended to them so that they can carry on as independent individuals in their own homes.

Now, I believe, I think I have talked to a great many senior citizens that would like some way pointed out to them whereby they could dispose of this big white elephant of a house or the other one that they can't take care of and take their small money and invest it in some sort of independent housing. Now, I do not mean that they are looking for isolated small-cost homes, low-cost homes, they are more interested in the communal type of housing where they can have the social contacts with people of their own age, and we get into things of that sort.

We have the real low income people who are very well taken care of in our low-cost public housing. They can get in, and they have wonderful facilities here in Minneapolis. Our high priced housing is for the wealthy people that can get into these foundered types of housing projects where they have to put down, oh, anywhere from $15,000 to $30,000, and their monthly maintenance runs as high as $300 or more a month.

Well, the segment that I really think needs some encouragement, some help somehow, are the people that are in this middle segment. They are too rich to get into low-cost public housing, they are too poor to get into expensive high-cost housing, and they are sitting in houses alone. They are lonesome, and lonesomeness, we have been told by some of our very fine educated people, is one of the main things that put people in nursing homes and congregate care homes.

Now, if something could be done to give these people encouragement, some way to encourage either nonprofit organizations, such as churches that are building nursing homes, to include this type-we have one example of that in the Wilder Foundation in St. Paul. I have information from another one in St. Paul, the Lutherans are contemplating building that type of facility on North Pasco Street. But I believe we should find some way to let these people know that they are not forgotten senior citizens. Thank you.

Senator LONG. Thank you for bringing that interesting phase of our problem to us.

You say they are either too rich or too poor, as we say in Missouri, between the devil and the deep blue sea.