STATEMENT OF MRS. JOSEPH NATHANSON, PRESIDENT, MINNEAPOLIS SECTION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN

Mrs. NATHANSON. I am Mrs. Joseph S. Nathanson, president of the Minneapolis section of the National Council of Jewish Women, representing the Minneapolis and St. Paul sections of the National Council of Jewish Women. The two sections have a combined membership of approximately 2,000 women. A major part of our program, both nationally and locally, is concerned with the problems of our senior citizens. We were the founders and sponsors of the Minneapolis' Council House for Senior Citizens, which is a nonsectarian recreational center for older adults; we are presently the cosponsors of an extensive Golden Age program at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Minneapolis, where we give both financial support and volunteer service. We also sponsor a Leisure League for Retired Adults in conjunction with the Jewish Community Center in St. Paul. We have studied the problems of our older adults in our study groups and have taken action in support of legislation which we have felt would increase the security and dignity of our aging population.

In February 1960, at a members' meeting sponsored by our Social Legislation study group and attended by 50 women, we discussed medical care insurance programs with representatives from the American Medical Association, Blue Cross and one of the commercial insurance companies. This group of women ranged in age from 25 to 70 and were from the middle income and higher middle income group. At the conclusion of this meeting, it was the overwhelming sentiment of this group that a medical insurance program under the social security program would be the best means of providing adequate medical care for our older adults. It was strongly felt that however well-intentioned these programs are, they are not structured to meet the increased health needs of our increasing older population.

It was expressed at this meeting that most older people could not afford the premiums for adequate health coverage in their retirement years. It was also felt that in the event of a catastrophic illness involving an older parent, most families would have difficulty recovering from the disastrous financial effects resulting from a long-term illness. In addition, most families in this particular middle income and higher middle income group would find turning to a public agency for medical assistance a humiliating experience.

In March 1961, the Jewish Community Center of Greater Minneapolis and the Jewish National Welfare Board cosponsored a five-city older adult program, which included Minneapolis and St. Paul. The workshop unanimously agreed that medical care under the social security program should be enacted, and the entire assembly of the fivecity conference passed a resolution on March 14, 1961, supporting President Kennedy's plan for integrating medical care into the social security system.

The National Council of Jewish Women testified in August of this year before the House Ways and Means Committee on behalf of medical care under the social security program. Their testimony was based on the results of a survey of medical costs among the members of council's Golden Age recreation centers and participants in other council-sponsored programs for the aging in 200 communities across the country.

It was concluded from this survey that a program of social insurance which places a small financial burden on everyone would relieve many older people of the worrisome burden of meeting staggering medical bills which they can ill afford to pay.

The Minneapolis and St. Paul sections of the National Council of Jewish Women reinforces the position taken by our national organization in regard to medical care under the social security system because of our own experiences in working and talking with older people, and also because of our discussions with members of our own group. We therefore believe that a medical care program which enables people to insure themselves through their own efforts against the prohibitive costs of illness in their later years would contribute substantially to the dignity and security of their later years. Thank you. Senator LONG. I am sure that you and members of your organization realize a great feeling of satisfaction for this fine work that you do in helping the senior citizens in their golden years. It is a satisfying service that you and your organization render.

STATEMENT OF REUBEN ERICKSON

Mr. ERICKSON. I am senior citizen Reuben Erickson.

For 34 years I have been in a general medical practice in this city. During that time I have taken care of many senior citizens over long period of illnesses. I am qualified for social security, and I found that my wife and I, if we went on social security, now would get $135 a month, and, of course, I could make $100 more on the side. But I also have investments so that if I went on social security, I could have an income of $600 a month, and we probably would get along fairly well on that money, but I don't intend to go on social security because I want to work as long as my health holds out and as long as I can take care of other senior citizens like myself.

Now, don't you honestly think that it would be ridiculous for somebody with an income like ours to become beneficiaries of this legislation that we are talking about today?

However, on the other hand, I have a brother, he is a retired farmer, retired before farmers got social security. He has a very small income, he lives with my sister.

Now, he cannot get any benefits from the King-Anderson bill. It is up to his brothers and sisters to take care of him, and I may say that we have always taken care of our own up to this time. My mother and father and sisters and brothers, we have never needed any outside help.

The other recourse, of course, he would have to go to the old-age assistance, which, I may say, in this State is functioning very, very well. I found that out by taking care of many patients. Now, isn't it kind of ridiculous that my brother, who is in need, or may be in need, can get no benefits from this legislation, whereas my wife and I, who do not need it, would get a whole lot of benefits?

It seems to me that it is sort of a type of segregation here between two different groups of people, those that have and those who have not. And I don't think it is fair. Now, just before I came over here, I had in my office a Mrs. Wall, 81 years old. I have taken care of her for many years. I have had her in hospitals and rest homes. She has always been satisfied with our old-age assistance. I have always been

satisfied with the pay I have received from the welfare department. And when she gets sick, she wants me and she wants her own hospital. And under the King-Anderson bill, you don't have a choice of hospital unless the hospital has already pledged to be on the program. And I think that we should think of these things. And I like Mrs. Wall, and she likes me, and we would like to continue the way we are. She doesn't want this legislation here. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF J. N. GROVES, LEGISLATURE GOLDEN COMMITTEE, SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL

Mr. GROVES. My name is J. N. Groves. I live at the Minnesota Soldier's Home. I am from the Legislature Golden Committee of the Senior Citizens Council.

There are thousands of people in Minneapolis who are living on oldage assistance only, which, at most, provides $71 a month. This lowincome group constitutes the largest group, and they have great difficulties in being able to take care of their expenses on this meager income.

Most people try to provide some means of support for their future, but when long periods of hospitalization are followed by death, it ofen exhausts the savings that a couple were able to accumulate and leaves the remaining one of the couple exhausted physically and financially.

Many of these elderly people are in poor health, lame, mentally disturbed to the extent that they cannot properly care for their own needs.

They may have grown children who are not able to assist them financially or are just not inclined to render any financial or personal aid. We must remember that these pension and aid plans were inaugurated, in the beginning, to enable elderly people to be able to live alone as long as possible and maintain a degree of respect for

themselves.

And their children and relatives, for the most part, are willing to let the situation stand that way rather than burden themselves with the responsibility of caring for their aging relatives.

This is a common practice, and not the exception. Also, in many instances, elderly people have great pride and dislike very much to call on their children or relatives for aid. Some would rather die a pauper's death before they would ask for aid. Asking for aid from their children, in many cases, would be taking benefits and perhaps necessities from their grandchildren, and this, to them, would appear intolerable.

Many elderly people are in need of hospital care, but refrain from going to a hospital because they cannot afford it. A short stay in a hospital such as for an operation, badly needed, might prolong their life and provide more comfortable living for several years.

My belief is that people in the lower income group should have a somewhat larger income to provide at least the necessities of life. Also, people in the lower income group should be able to have hospital care provided at no cost to themselves.

I am much in favor of the low-cost housing projects provided by our Government. However, there are many needy people who would

have difficulty in paying the rent for an apartment in one of those low-cost housing projects unless their present incomes were raised. Retirement is forced on many people by ill health and, under those circumstances, they have very little chance to add to their incomes after retirement.

Senator LONG. Mr. Frank Adams has asked for 2 or 3 minutes. Mr. Adams is here now. We will be glad to hear him.

Is Mr. Adams in the audience now?

(There was no response.)

Senator LONG. We will hear another witness.

STATEMENT OF MYRTLE HARRIS, UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNION

Miss HARRIS. I am Myrtle Harris from the United Auto Workers Union International, also representing Minneapolis Central Laborers Union Council Old-Timers Club.

We have many members who are retired and are interested in good legislation for our members and all other people in Minnesota who have reached that age. We can't understand why the medical profession is against medical care for the aged. It seems that the doctors would benefit also. We hope that the Senate committee will recommend this bill to be enacted into law.

Thank you.

Senator LONG. Mr. Frank Adams will now appear.

STATEMENT OF FRANK ADAMS, MINNEAPOLIS CENTRAL LABOR

UNION

Mr. ADAMS. Senator Long and Committee on Aging, I am here as a spokesman for the Minneapolis Central Labor Union. I have submitted a prepared statement for your committee.

I simply want to state that it was a great philosopher who stated some time ago that society institutions never stand still, they either move ahead or go behind. It is my feeling that the old method of payment of hospitalization just is not adequate to meet the situation for the aged today. About 18 months ago the Minneapolis Central Labor Union sponsored a petition on which we have thousands and thousands of names in support of the Forand medical bill. We presently support the King-Anderson bill. We support it because we know that this bill eliminates the means test for medical care. We want our senior citizens to live in dignity. This bill will permit them to have this dignity.

We also know that there are strong forces that oppose this bill. Those same forces opposed the social security enactment in 1945 when I was an undergraduate at this same university. They also opposed such things as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, workmen's compensation and other things too numerous to mention.

It is going to take some real effort on the part of many, many citizens to get this legislation enacted.

I want to tell you, Senator, that as a spokesman for the Minneapolis Central Labor Union we wholeheartedly support the King-Anderson bill.

Thank you very much.

(The prepared statement of Frank Adams follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK ADAMS

A great philosopher had made an observation that is quite appropriate to this meeting. His observation was as follows: "Society and institutions never stand perfectly still. Either you move ahead or you slip backwards. Improvements, on the other hand, just don't happen without effort. They usually result from a strong will to improve." I am convinced that there is always a better way to handle health insurance for senior citizens.

As a spokesman for the Minneapolis Central Labor Union Council, I strongly believe that we in labor have a responsibility to speak up and be heard and that is the reason for my appearance here today. Your committee has given us the opportunity to state our position in regard to the problem of the aging. I will speak only of one facet of the total problem and so I will confine my remarks to that of medical care for our senior citizens.

In

First, let me say that the Minneapolis CLUC sponsored a petition about 18 months ago which carried thousands of names in support of the Forand bill. our opinion the Forand bill held out hope for medical care for our senior citizens without the stigma of the means test. Candid observers recognized that the Forand medical bill involved the difference between constant peril and peace of mind between humilation and dignity, between pauperism and true social security.

The Minneapolis Central Labor Union now supports the Anderson-King bill. No doubt this bill will be up for consideration in the next session of Congress. We support this bill for the following reasons: (1) paying for health care through social security is the only commonsense method of minimizing the tragedy that illness imposes on older people; (2) benefits can be the same no matter where the patient lives and he can choose his own doctor and hospital; (3) the new Federal payments can supplement whatever he or his children provide through individual effort and resources; and (4) financing can be assured through a small increase in social security contributions by people still working. Persons already retired would pay nothing but would share in the new program just as they have in the past improvements of the old-age survivor's and disability insurances.

Those who state that there is no need for such legislation can refer to various studies. For example, the Brookings Institution recently published a study of Herman Somers and his wife, Anne Somers, a husband and wife team of economists. Their findings stated that medical costs of the aged appear to average about one-third of their income, while existing insurance plans, they conclude, pay no more than one-sixth of the cost for those who actually have some insurance coverage, and meet only about one-fourteenth of the total medical costs for the aged as a whole.

In the April 11 issue of Look magazine, Roland H. Berg, medical editor, wrote the following: "The financial and medical problems of men and women over 65 are obvious. More than half of these 16 million Americans live on incomes of less than $20 per week. More than two-thirds get along on less than $40 per week. This compares with the $100 a week income of the average wage earner under 65. While struggling along on reduced incomes, the aged face bigger doctor and hospital bills than their juniors.

Still another aspect of this matter of payment for health insurance like any term insurance is that one of the chief causes for the continuing sharp rise in their premiums is the fact of the high cost of hospital care for the aged. So in an indirect way, wage earners are already absorbing a significant part of the hospital care of the aged. It is our studied judgment that social security offers a less costly method of financing health care for the aged for it would tend to level off the rise in medical insurance premiums, and in addition could open the way to wider benefits for persons covered by such insurance.

The process of changing and modernizing existing institutions is not an easy one. We recognize that strong forces oppose change. These forces opposed the social security concept back in 1935; they opposed Blue Cross and Blue Shield, workman's compensation, and many other such programs too numerous to mention.

Labor has always been in the forefront for sound, progressive social legisla tion and for that reason we now urge the pasasge of the Anderson-King bill.