STATEMENT OF MISS MARTHA VEAL Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Martha Veal. I live at 1008 Chestnut Street, Duncan, Okla. I am a retired teacher, a graduate of the University of Oklahoma with a master's degree. I have taught 45 years, all in Oklahoma. Besides substituting in the Duncan public schools, teaching private pupils, doing Gray Lady work in local hospitals, church visitation of shut-ins and patients in nursing or convalescent homes, I am engaged in community projects, and I am trying to inform myself about national and world issues, so far as it is possible to do so. I appear before you today as a witness opposed to the medicare legislation under consideration, which seeks to commit the Federal Government to a program of providing medical care for all persons eligible for social security regardless of need. My experience as a Gray Lady and in visiting shut-ins and residents in nursing homes has made me poignantly aware of the problems of aging and of illness; illness not exclusively of the older citizens, but of people of all ages. From my study of the question before us, H.R. 3920, I have found that you, the members of this committee, have heard and well know many of the arguments pro and con; the statistical tables; the points of view; the political and economic philosophies of your witnesses, many of whom have adequately researched and documented their positions. Thus, perhaps, you do not need repetition of facts. But you probably have not heard from a witness who grew up in the wide-open spaces of Oklahoma, where self-reliance and thrift were not only virtues but necessities; who started to school at the age of 91⁄2 years, walked 2 miles to a one-teacher school; who began teaching at the age of 16, continuing her education between brief teaching stints; who acquired an education without a scholarship, a Government subsidy, or grant. You probably haven't heard from a witness whose first salary was $120 per year. These reflections of a frugal, unsophisticated background, I hope, will enable you to understand, to some extent at least, my convictions about this: another socialistic proposal. Let it be understood now that I am no more opposed to legitimate aid to the sick, the aged, and the unfortunate than I am to motherhood or old-maid schoolteachers. But I am opposed to the erosions which are working to destroy initiative, incentive, self-reliance, and moral responsibility: qualities which are requisites of a free society, and which were the fabric of this great constitutional Republic. I am opposed to the erosions brought about by Fabian, liberal, leftist, statist tampering with our constitutional American heritage of free enterprise, which has created the most affluent society in history and is the envy of the world; a system which satisfies more needs and desires than all other systems combined; a system which is expected and does give aid to more than 100 other countries. Such erosions have developed a generation of Americans, some of whom sneer at or at least shrug off such character traits as thrift and self-reliance. Thus some have been brainwashed into a weakness which renders them willing to accept whatever they can get for as little as possible to give in return. Gradually, over several decades, many have succumbed to far too many of the siren calls of luxury without effort, of ease without paying the price, of letting the Government take care of them. The whole Socialist concept plays on human weakness, not strength. The whole concept is immoral because it develops moral irresponsibility. Now most of the older people whom I have come to know intimately are not victims of this brainwashed, progressive, interdependent, Keynesian economic philosophy; neither are they all in need, as some would have us believe. Also, much of this theory about the humiliation from being subjected to a means test is overdone sentimentalism designed for ulterior motives aside from help to the sick, the blind, the homeless, and the lame. Believe it or not, about four-fifths of the people past 65 are even in good health. Since Americans have always rejected socialized medicine when presented with a clear-cut choice, the present strategy is to bring it in through the back door by means of an irresistible appeal to help the aged. This is the famous Fabian approach of the Socialists: avoid a direct engagement and move in a little at the time, by indirect means. 27-166-64-pt. 5——28 Thus, you see the real reason for opposing the presently proposed legislation is that it is the first step toward eventually socialized medicine. An ironically amusing comment made by a man who had been listening to a long drawn out argument about all the imaginary needs of the so-called aged was this: I wonder whether the members of the older group are economically poor, unemployed, ill, disabled, friendless, homeless, unintelligent, uninformed, helpless, unoccupied, uninvited, and unwanted. The truth is that every impartial study of this problem by competent and reliable private research agencies shows that more than two-thirds of our senior citizens are financially able to take care of themselves. And the number would be much greater if inflation, manipulated by Federal tampering with economic laws, had not destroyed more than half of the purchasing power of their dollars. This single greatest cause of the unhappy plight of senior citizens is inflation. It robs retired people living on fixed incomes more than anyone else. Still other senior citizens who aren't financially able to take care of themselves have children who are willing and feel the moral responsibility to take care of their parents; children who take seriously the fifth commandment, honor thy father and thy mother, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the contrary notwithstanding. A report from that Department entitled, "Filial Responsibility in the Modern Family," says, "It is a popular belief about filial responsibility that its origins are lost in antiquity, resting on even earlier if no more majestic sanction than the fifth commandment." By way of a parenthetical remark, I presume that the misused, misapplied fifth amendment has supplanted the fifth commandment. Why does a Department of our Government, which was founded on belief in God, thus downgrade the sacred word? Why does a Department of our Government thus discourage moral and social responsibility? Why does any department of government pander to human weakness? Since the question of medical care of the aged is bound up, not only with economic and political, but moral and ethical considerations, let us call further attention to moral and ethical facets of our problem: On what moral grounds does the state have a right to seize the property of one group in society in order to subsidize another group because the group receiving it has more voting power than the group being robbed? Is it a fulfillment of Christian ethics for government to relieve sons and daughters of their responsibility by coercing other people to pay the bill by taxation? Is it ethically best for the Nation, for the older folk, and for the sons and daughters to encourage this kind of evasion of responsibility? There will always be a relatively small number of senior citizens, through misfortunes not of the own making, for whom there are no family, church, or lodge ties, or other community agencies. A civilized, humanitarian, JudeoChristian culture must meet such people's needs. And there is no reason or excuse in this wealthy country of ours for those in need to be denied the necessities of life. Likewise, there is no reason for burdening society as a whole with the maintenance of any individual or family unless that person or family has exerted honest, persistent efforts to care for themselves. After the number of senior citizens who are able to take care of themselves and the number whose children should and will take care of them are thus removed, an examination of the Kerr-Mills bill will be viewed as adequate to provide medical care for all other people over 65 who are really in need of such assistance. Let's not rob the individual of his God-given rights and responsibilities to solve his own problems, to think and act for himself, to be as we all were once, rugged and responsible individuals. "When the Government assumes cradle-to-grave responsibilities for each of us, the knell of doom for our Nation has sounded. For weakness is thereby generated, and weakness is the temptation for the strong to conquer us." 1 Members of the committee, I ask you to reject H.R. 3920. 1 TESTIMONY BY REV. HARRY J. HAGER, PH. D., D.D., LL.D., PASTOR FOR 35 YEARS OF BETHANY REFORMED CHURCH, CHICAGO'S SECOND LARGEST PROTESTANT PARISH In dealing with the present question of old-age medical care security, a question involving directly or indirectly the institution of property and the responsibility of persons and personalities, one is bound in due course to find himself confronted with basic principle and not merely practical expediency. We are 1 Rt. Rev. A. C. Dalton. living in a time when thousands of voices are protesting our present social order and our current economic system, voices of socialism, communism, statism, etc., all of them promising a utopian society to a perplexed populace. There is danger in the case of the proposed medical aid plan that expediency might triumph over principle if the majority of our Nation's older citizens are sufficiently and effectively propagandized to feel that old age medical assistance will be of special benefit to them as a class and segment of our American society, even though the burden of expense and the tax increase falls upon others not directly or immediately benefited. Also, the younger voters by skillful propaganda can be made to feel that the burden of the individual younger voter confronted with the ultimate old-age care of his parents is by some magic more easily borne by a corporate whole, i.e., a solicitous and paternally minded Government, than by any individual rainyday previous savings of the parents themselves or by their offsprings' sacrifices on behalf of their disabled and incapacitated elders. This appeal to the younger voter is likely to be enhanced if the ultimate hope of eventual blanket coverage for all types and cases of parental disablement is held out as a persuasive inducement. In all of this appeal, however, both to the older citizens and also to the voters of the rising generation the question must be confronted: Do elderly people actually have a more basic claim on the Government than they do on their offspring for support and supplement in the matter of old age incapacitation? In addition to these plausible inducements there are sentimental persuasions influencing some segments of our American society that glibly ask, "If we can spend money on missiles, astronauts, and foreign aid, can't the good White Father at Washington also find additional money that can be well spent on our ailing oldsters, and also if practically everybody is in favor of social security why not be in favor of a little more old-age medical care security"? Aside from practical considerations, such as whether the proposed medical aid plan will not in due time take our American society up the road that marks the beginning of the end of free medicine, create ultimately also a shortage of doctors while provoking a contemporary inferior performance, one must confront himself ultimately with the basic question: What is the responsibility of Government? Is it not, first of all, to challenge our citizenry to be economically responsible and self-reliant; to promote and inspire personal initiative, and to encourage thrift and foresightedness on the part of all? The long-range experience of community obligation as it concerns the handicapped, the disabled and the victims of misfortune is in the nature of the case a form of assistance that is to be only supplementary to the primary obligation of the immediate household and family unit itself. This is always recognized in the matter of alimony and support of one's offspring. It holds also in the matter of filial obligation toward parents. Also, in this matter of proposed medical aid Government is obligated to consider the minority most affected, in this case the rights of the doctor to his own personal high standards, the choice of his field of practice and his own evaluation of proper compensation. This, as well as the right of the American citizen as a patient to choose his own doctor or surgeon in a relationship in which the safeguard of complete privacy is such a vital consideration. In all my contacts through the past 35 consecutive years in one parish, a populous polyglot industrial community on Chicago's South Side, I have never found a single local physician not immediately responsive to a single emergency or charity case calling for completely gratis service from the doctor himself. As a clergyman and minister I have found the medical profession together with the several local community organizations completely competent to handle all special medical care cases without Federal Government prop or regulation. Mr. LEO H. IRWIN, WEBB & TRAVERS, Salisbury, Md., November 21, 1963. Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR MR. IRWIN: I appreciate the opportunity which you have offered to appear before the Ways and Means Committee on medicare, in response to my request. I know how deluged the committee is with such requests from the bureaucrats, and the special interest and pressure groups. It is refreshing that a private citizen can be fitted in. Very frankly, however, I think an attempt to compress what I have to say in the 5 minutes allotted would be a waste of the committee's time and accordingly I have not confirmed the engagement. I am writing this letter to express my appreciation, however, for your courtesy. The one point that I would especially like to make, which I can do in this letter, is that I have seen nothing that gets, in my judgment, to the real nub of the matter. On my analysis, the national responsibility arises only when the aged cannot protect themselves gainst calamitous medical expenses. We already have the Kerr-Mills program to protect those who cannot afford self-protection, and on my limited experience, this program is working well. The real problem to me therefore, is how we can foster the maximum in self-protection for the aged. I suggest that the answer lies in private group insurance, with a credit against Federal income tax for the amount paid for such insurance. This tax credit should be available not only to the beneficiary of the insurance, but also to anyone who pays for the insurance on his behalf. In that fashion, for example. children would be given an inducement to provide the protection for their parents which is their moral responsibility, without getting into an argument with tax authorities about dependency. I would like to have been able to explain the grounds for my objection to medicare, but I am afraid that it could not be compressed intelligently into this letter or 5 minutes of testimony. My approach would have been from the standpoint of nearly a decade of experience as a trustee of a 350-bed nonprofit general hospital. I do appreciate again the courtesy, however, of even that amount of time. Very truly yours, JOHN W. T. WEBB. NEW YORK, N.Y., Hon. LEO H. IRWIN. Chief Clerk, Committee on Ways and Means of the 88th Congress, MY DEAR MR. IRWIN: I'm sending you a copy of my statement. HERMAN ROSANETZ. HERMAN ROSANETZ, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS, DEAR MR. ROSANETZ: I am sorry that I could not answer your letter before now but the press of the campaign has been such that I have been unable to answer you until now. I can say that we have met with success on the matter of covering people not covered by social security and railroad retirement. The President has agreed to be receptive to amendments to give protection to those not covered by social security. There is interest in the Ways and Means Committee for carrying this out and we are working to make sure that this gets in the final version of the bill. I hope that you will help influence Senator Javits to offer an amendment rather than just continuing to fight a one-man battle for a hopeless bill. His bill has no support on the Ways and Means Committee as it now stands. I hope that you will work to get him to work to get a bill passed and not just create an issue for his election campaign. Sincerely, BLUE CARSTENSON, STATEMENT OF HERMAN ROSANETZ ON MEDICAL CARE FOR THE AGED NOT COVERED BY SOCIAL SECURITY, BEFORE THE BOARD OF ESTIMATES, CITY OF NEW YORK, MAY 31, 1963 PROCEEDINGS Acting Mayor CAVANAUGH. Mr. Herman Rosanetz. Mr. HERMAN ROSANETZ. Mr. Mayor, members of the board of estimate, before I give my statement to you, gentlemen, I wish to inform the board of estimate as well as the people listening on the radio that I was that individual who went before the U.S. Subcommittee on Aging on November 20, 1961, in which I charged the democratically controlled Congress and Senate and President John F. Kennedy with violations of the public trust if they don't cover the aged citizen. If the aged citizen is not covered in social security with medical care-and it was a while later when I received a letter from an organization known as the National Health Under Social Security Acting Mayor CAVANAUGH. Whom do you represent here today? Mr. ROSANETZ. I represent myself as a citizen. And there I received a letter from the National Council of Senior Citizens for Health Care through Social Security. And it was signed by Mr. Bloom Kirsten, and in it he statedBut the press I can say "I am sorry that I could not answer your letter before now. of the campaign has been such that I have been unable to until now. that we are met with success on the matter of covering people not covered by social security and railroad retirement. "The President has agreed to be responsive to amendments to give protection to those not covered by social security. There is interest in the Ways and Means Committee for carrying this out." Acting Mayor CAVANAGH. Mr. Rosanetz-Mr. Beame has a question. Comptroller BEAME. Mr. Rosanetz, could you tell us how you propose to relate this to the budget? Mr. ROSANETZ. Do you want me to stop this? Mr. BEAME. I would like to find out how you propose to relate it to the budget? Mr. ROSANETZ. I will dispense with this, since we could have a talk, we might as well come around to it. During the campaign of 1960 for President, the Democratic Board of Estimate was hot and heavy in favor of the Forand bill which would cover those who are covered under social security. But they were not concerned with the 4 million or more throughout the country who are not covered through social security, which involves my mother. Now, we all know that it takes money to run a government or to run a business. Now, if you people were sincere in keeping the expense budget of the city of New York within limits, you would have exercised the same determination as I did to fight for the medical care for the people who are not covered by social security. And it was a shame, and I think it was a betrayal of public trust of every elected official during the Democratic election by not conceding that there were many millions who were not covered under social security. I am aware that the month of May is the Senior Citizens' month. But what consideration has the board of estimate, the Democratic-controlled board of estimate, which they have a standard bearer in Washington as their presidential man in Washington—what consideration does the board of estimate give to these people? You have not been concerned. Comptroller BEAME. Do you have any suggestions on this budget? Mr. BEAME. I wish you would make them so we can evaluate them? Mr. ROSANETZ. Right now, President Kennedy has proposed a medical care bill to cover the 4 million who are not covered, and in that way it will help the city of New York to alleviate the burden upon those who are not covered with medical care. Mr. BEAME. As you know, the Democratic administration here in the city has been a thousand percent for that purpose. So I think we are all agreed on that. Mr. ROSANETZ. But where was the Democratic city administration during 1960 presidential election? You people ran a campaign at Union Square. This is not any more 1900's where the elected officials are going to run their way. I went before the U.S. Subcommittee on Aged, and I charged that the Democratic-controlled Congress should be ashamed for violating the public trust. This |