Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Senator CURTIS. May I interrupt right there?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.

Senator CURTIS. Those polls are in face of the great amount of misinformation that is put out about King-Anderson and similar proposal, isn't that right?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; this is true. There was one poll taken in favor by a representative who in his poll asked this question.

He said: "Wouldn't it be nice if you could have all this for a quarter a week?"

And on that particular poll he got a yes.

Senator CURTIS. I am not condemning any person, but the fact remains that there is a very widespread amount of misinformation and lack of information on what the King-Anderson bill will do, who will pay the taxes and what the old folks would get out of it, isn't that correct?

Mr. HILL. I think this is absolutely true, Senator.

Senator CURTIS. Yes.

Mr. HILL. We believe that one other statistic should be mentioned. The Kerr-Mills law is now in operation in 37 States, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. More States are passing laws to implement that program every legislative

year.

Just one more poll. When I learned I was coming here, I decided that it might be of benefit to this committee if I brought you the latest thinking of the people of Indiana. So I asked one of the 12 radio stations in Indianapolis to ask the following question on one of their public service programs, with answers to be sent to me.

The question was used on an evening program on Thursday and Friday, August 6 and 7, and on Monday, August 10. To be tabulated, an opinion had to be in the mail on Tuesday, August 11, so that I would have it the next day.

In so short a time, I believe you will agree the number of replies is amazing, particularly when you consider that the question was on radio 3 times on only 1 station out of 12, and that people had to compose their own letters, postcards, and telegrams after hearing the program, and that people acted purely on a voluntary basis. The question was worded in as unbiased a manner as it could be:

Do you favor the present Kerr-Mills law, which is a Federal-State cooperative law which pays all medical bills for people 65 and over who cannot pay their own, or do you favor a compulsory approach under social security which would cover everyone over 65?

People were asked to send their replies directly to me at my home.
The results:

Total number expressing an opinion----
Total number in favor of King-Anderson-type legislation.

325

3

Total opposed to all social programs or in favor of Kerr-Mills legislation__ 322
Percent favoring King-Anderson_.
Percent favoring Kerr-Mills----

1

99

I would like to comment here on just two things, I frankly was very much surprised at this. I did not think that the preponderance again would be so great, and secondly, I was amazed at the number of people who, with an opportunity to get their thinking before this committee, who were in favor of medicare under social security did not bother to even write.

I have all of these opinions here with me. I have brought them here in this book, and if I may I would like to turn them over to this committee as a sampling of the people of Indiana on the bill you are now considering, is that permissible?

Senator LONG. We can keep it for the committee files, not for the record.

Mr. HILL. May I turn it in?

Senator LONG. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to will be found in the files of the committee.)

Mr. HILL. I have also included here the thinking of about 200 members of our own association, all over the country who have sent me their thinking and I would like, if I may, to turn this over to the committee,

too.

In summary, for some reasons that we, as members of the International Association of Health Underwriters, believe are equally as important as all of the statistics that have been mentioned in this report and elsewhere.

Our members constantly deliver claim checks in practically every hospital in the country. We are thoroughly aware that when a person is hospitalized, the family budget can be wrecked, family finances can suffer a definite setback. And it is unquestioned that when this happens to an individual age 65 or over, particularly if he is retired, his ability to recover by earning money is severely curtailed or even nonexistent.

But health care problems of those 65 and over are problems of individuals not problems of an age group. There are many millions of older Americans who are perfectly capable of taking care of their own financial needs, be they for hospitalization or otherwise—and who without question prefer to do so.

During the last 4 or so years, it has been my personal privilege to make more than 100 talks on the subject of medicare from groups as small as 30 or 40 to groups as large as 700 or 800, and on radio and television where for practical purposes it is impossible to measure the number who are listening.

It is amazing how many older people attended these meetings, even in inclement weather. I will never forget a night that was 5 below zero in northern_Indiana, when the wind was blowing probably 30 miles per hour. I spoke at a meeting that was attended by more than 300 people.

After the meeting, one of the people who came to the front of the room to speak to me told me that she was 84 years old, and that she was unalterably opposed to legislation of this kind. I don't even know her name, but to me she represents the thinking of many of the people over 65 in our country-proud, independent, self-sufficient and self-reliant; who want the feeling of self-satisfaction that comes from knowing that they have taken care of themselves-that they are in debt to no one that they have not needed a social program to pay for their needs. I have talked personally to hundreds of other Americans just like this lady, and surveys indicate that there are millions more.

Social security taxation is becoming an increasing burden to the younger people of this country. Yet few of them would shirk their obligation to the older people of our country-and such an obligation definitely does exist.

But that obligation is to the people who cannot care for their own needs-it is not to everyone on the automatic event of his or her 65th birthday. The obligation of society is to the people of any and every age who are unable to care for themselves.

In the health care field, we are meeting this obligation to people 65 and over through the Kerr-Mills law and State programs, and to younger people through State and Federal programs of public assistance. These should be maintained at a level that will meet the needs of those less fortunate in our society.

But no law should be passed which will make everyone who does not need a Federal medicare program subject to such a program. We believe that this is the thinking not only of the International Association of Health Underwriters, but also of the majority of the American people.

Thank you for allowing us the privilege of presenting our testimony at this hearing.

Yes, if I may, I would like to add two points that are not on here that had to do with subjects that have been previously discussed this morning.

Is that permissible?

Senator LONG. Yes.

Mr. HILL. Very briefly, one of the questions that Senator Smathers brought up before he left the room was this: The question there has been a lot of misinformation, as Senator Curtis referred to a moment ago, about both social security and the medicare plan, and the question has been asked or the statement has been made whichever way we prefer to look at it, that isn't it a good idea for people to save during their working years in order to pay for things that they want after retirement.

And I think everyone who agrees with the free enterprise system or with individual initiative agrees that this is true.

I would like to point out that this has been represented as being true of both social security and medicare and nothing could be further from the truth.

Just as a specific case in point, I would like to mention, for example, a man who has been under social security since the law first became effective January 1, 1937, who retired January 1, 1964, and who has paid the maximum amount of social security taxes every year since the law was enacted; if he has paid that maximum amount of taxes, he has paid $1,758 in social security taxes.

If he and his wife both live out their actuarially anticipated lifetimes they will draw $36,200 in benefits.

Senator LONG. It seems to me we should recognize that people are saving. You put these figures in the record in your statement, stating that 70 percent of families over 65 own their own homes completely paid for.

If we are going to take out 10 percent of their income for social security taxes it will be 15 percent in the next 10 years. If you are going to take out 15 percent of their income for social security taxes, plus about 20 percent for costs of general government of the United States, let the States get to them for about another 5 or 6 percent, by the time the government gets through with them we take about 50 percent of their income from them in taxes. Then you are not going to have any

70 percent of them who own their own homes by the time they get to be 65 because the government just wouldn't be leaving them that much on which to live.

Mr. HILL. I think that is exactly true.

Senator LONG. So as a practical matter they do have savings and if they fall sick or fall on bad times that is an asset against which they can borrow a very substantial amount of money if they need it, otherwise the home would never have been paid for to begin with.

They would have had the mortgage on the home in the first instance. So, I think it is well to keep in mind that people are providing for these things. They may not be thinking about it that way but when they have a life insurance policy, with cash value, they have a home that is debt free, and they have an automobile and things of that sort, they do have assets or savings which are resources that they can call upon if they need them.

That has been the tradition of this country, at least up until now for the first 200 years of the Nation's existence anyway. We save and provide for our own needs when these things arise.

One thing that does concern me somewhat is this argument that you should not have any needs test in connection with this. It may sound fine, let's not have any needs test, but if you are talking about taxing someone who can't afford to pay in the first instance, some man who has a wife and five or six children to provide for, making $3,000, and taxing him money he can't afford to pay, and taking that to provide medical care for someone who is well able to pay for it, it doesn't quite square with the theory of social justice that when you charge someone to provide a service for someone else, the person who is paying should be the one who is better able to pay than the person who is receiving.

Mr. HILL. This is one thing that has been very confusing to me as to why the needs test has been objected to so strenuously in regard to medicare, as we call it, when most of our other Federal, State, and local programs, Federal programs, contain a needs test for assistance.

Senator BENNETT. I would just comment that earlier in the hearings I put into the record a list of 10 of the major Federal assistance programs which do involve a means test, and I can't find any program except the King-Anderson proposal which does not involve a means

test.

We are breaking into new territory on the theory that everything we have done in the past somehow embarrasses and humiliates, those who have received Federal benefits or subsidies apparently just to talk about their medical care means we suddenly are supposedly going to embarrass and humiliate them when we ask them how well they are prepared to either take care of themselves or contribute part of the costs of the program.

Senator CURTIS. In the interest of saving time, I won't say much. You had a very fine paper and gave us a lot of information.

One question: Isn't it true that an individual might be a veteran of many years' combat, if he has ample means to pay his bill in the veterans' hospital he is required to pay it, isn't that true?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.

Senator CURTIS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LONG. I asked this question and I have been supplied the answer I believe to be the correct answer. Here is a statement of Fed

eral expenditures for medical and health-related programs on an agency basis. I believe I will have this put in the record at this point. The total net budget expenditures for health in 1963 were, at the Federal level were $4,663,500,000.

Now, the 1964 estimate, and the year is far enough along to know how it would work out, was $5,214 million or an increase of $600 million roughly, and for next year the estimate is $5,408 million, an increase of another $200 million based on estimates.

My guess is we will spend more than that. So we are, at the Federal level, spending a great amount of money on health now.

Senator BENNETT. Isn't all of that subject to a means test?

Senator LONG. Not all of it because part of it comes under the Veterans' Administration, and the Defense Department. But there is most of it would be and there is a tremendous expenditure here. Thanks so much.

Mr. HILL. Thank you.

Senator LONG. That was page 399 of the budget of the Government of the United States for 1965.

The next witness is John B. O'Day.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. O'DAY, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE INSURANCE ECONOMICS SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Mr. O'DAY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is John B. O'Day, and I am appearing on behalf of the Insurance Economics Society of America, an organization devoted to the study of all forms of social insurance. My home is in Northbrook, Ill.

It is with a deep sense of responsibility we appear before this Senate committee to give testimony in opposition to proposals which would add hospital and nursing services to the already underfunded social security OASDI program.

These proposals are not new. They have been around in one form or another for over two decades. Congress has rejected them time after time, year after year, because they are fiscally unsound; they impose a tax burden on the current wage earner to provide inadequate medical care for all over 65 in order to reach a minority in need; and they have been rejected because of the adverse effect they would have on the American philosophy of life.

That there is a growing and urgent need for this type of legislation proponents have argued for years. But the facts are that the magnitude of the actual need and its urgency have been diminishing rapidly due to the farsighted measures taken by previous Congresses and the demonstrated desire and capability of the private sector to provide the best health care for the entire population, aged included.

There are those who would have the American people believe that the legislative branch is impervious to the need for medical care of our aged-that a congressional deaf ear has been turned to the problem. A review of the legislation which has been passed by this body to alleviate this problem indicates that nothing could be further from the truth.

I refer to the old-age assistance program which provides our indigent aged with not only complete medical care but with food, clothing, and shelter as well.

« PředchozíPokračovat »