Commerce attack the Kennedy plan as being unsound, and that it would open the door to Federal health care for people of all ages. These are the same old cries of "Wolf" that we have heard from groups like this since the concept of social security was conceived a quarter of a century ago.

Opponents of social security have called it unsound since its inception, but time has proven them wrong. They have embarked on the same old line, attacking the fiscal soundness of the proposals sponsored by the administration as they did 25 years ago. They are attacking this plan as being unsound from an actuarial standpoint. They say that it is a threat to the trust fund itself. In fact, they know, as we know, the administration plan provides specific protection to the trust fund by creating three new and separate accounts within the trust fund itself, all of which will be administered under the existing apparatus of the social security system.

We feel that this is also an answer to their second objection. We do not look upon the Anderson-King proposal as anything more than a sound and logical extension of the existing social security system. The legislation that is pending today could not open any such door, since the social security system does not have the key. Their arguments are as fallacious as saying that a big army to protect us against communism will lead to a military dictatorship. In fact, we need a big Army, and in fact we need this extension in the social security system. We sincerely believe in the social security system, and would not support any proposal we felt would jeopardize the trust fund. Rather than rely on the AMA and the chamber, we prefer the findings of former U.S. Senator Harry P. Cain, a conservative Republican from Washington, and now a Miami banker, who spent many months of work and research as to the feasibility of placing medical care under the social security system. It was the conclusion of his committee, as it is ours, that health service benefit funds should be established within the social security system to provide medical benefits for all retired

persons.

Now let me tell you a little about our club down in Florida. Let me say first that all of us are for social security. Most of us are not for socialized medicine, but we are convinced that this proposal is not socialized medicine. In the last 13 weeks since our club was conceived, 1,800 senior citizens in north Broward County have become members. Most of these people are retirees from all over the country who are down here on savings, pensions, and primarily their social security, to enjoy the climate of Florida. We believe we've found the "fountain of youth." We represent, however, only a drop in the bucket of over half a million such persons in this State.

We are not paupers. We have been productive citizens of this Nation throughout the century. We have given of ourselves and our loved ones through two World Wars and Korea to help make this country great.

Here in Florida we have found an ideal climate in which to retire. We don't live "high on the hog," but most of us get by. The biggest problem we face, however, is major medical emergency; the huge medical, hospital, and nursing home bills which must accompany a major illness. These are threats to the security of our nest eggs, which all of us feel.

Private insurance doesn't have the answer, and many of us have grown bitter after paying premiums for years, only to find that the companies have canceled us out, or finding the coverage is so constricted and restricted, that the policies present only illusions of security.

There have been many witnesses to tell you the statistics, experts and advocates on both sides. I simply say that our membership in Florida needs the legislation that is here under consideration today. Our membership is 100 percent for the extension of social security to cover medical care.

In summary, our membership comes from all fields: engineers, clerks, teachers, and workers, "Jacks of every trade." These people are from every State in the Union and our president doesn't know of a single member who is a native Floridian.

Our organization is dedicated to the general welfare, health, and happiness of our senior citizens and we have endorsed medical care under social security by a unanimous vote. Our growth is over 100 a week, and these people join us because they are willing to fight for the principle of medical care under social security and we will have over 2,000 members by our 15th week.

Unfortunately our members can't pay for a high-priced professional lobbyist like Dr. Annis to crusade across the continent on a fat expense account for the AMA, but we have people, folks who are both Republicans and Democrats and come from a diverse group of backgrounds and religious denominations. We are held together by one purpose, obtaining a fair deal for ourselves and for the younger generation by not cluttering relief rolls. We believe in the extension of the social security system to cover medical care.

We do not look for "something for nothing," as we want to pay our fair share. We don't want socialized anything; however, we do want assurance that we won't be wiped out by a major medical

emergency.

Most of our retirees aren't paupers, and we feel we've earned the right to retire and enjoy our golden years. We want to know that our social security will be adequate to meet our major medical needs, and that's why we are here today.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Simmons.

Are there any questions?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curtis.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Simmons, I believe yours was the case that was brought to my attention by Dean Brown of Princeton when he testified here. You referred to your testimony before the McNamara subcommittee hearings, which he referred to here. And for that reason, I want to check on it. And I find your testimony on page 59. I also find, however, testimony beginning on 148 of the executive vice president of Mutual of Omaha, which puts an entirely different light on your situation.

Let me ask you this question: Was not the policy that you were talking about as being canceled a loss-of-time policy, which included no hospitalization?

Mr. SIMMONS. The policy includes this statement: "Noncancelable endorsement: The association cannot cancel this policy during any period for which a premium has been paid."

Mr. CURTIS. That is right. But let me read to you this. Did you read the testimony of the mutual?

Mr. SIMMONS. No, I did not.

Mr. CURTIS. I think you owe them the courtesy to do that. Let me read from this and see if this is accurate:

In the fall of 1948, Mr. Simmons informed us he was retired. As a retired person, he was no longer eligible for a loss of income. It was sort of like a man continuing to carry insurance on his home, when he no longer owned it, or to insure an automobile when he no longer has his automobile. We endeavored to sell him a hospitalization policy with either $5 or $10 a day room benefits, surgical, and miscellaneous benefits ***. These policies would have cost him $46 or $70 a year, respectively. Subsequently, we offered him our senior security hospitalization policy, which he also refused. The company, in planning to accept his tender for renewal of premium on obsolete coverage, stated: "We urge you to reconsider your decision and yet avail yourself of the protection for which you now qualify."

Mr. Simmons, what they are saying is this: That you had a good policy, but it covered your loss of time. It did not cover hospital cost. And when you retired, of course, there was no loss of time available, because you were not working. So they did not cancel the policy. There were no benefits that could come from that, if I understand their statement. And they offered instead that you take out a policy which would cover your needs.

I wonder if you would comment.

Mr. SIMMONS. I surely will. I had a policy that cost me $9 a quar

ter.

Mr. CURTIS. Yes. That is right.

Mr. SIMMONS. And they were offering me a policy that would pay $5 a day for hospital.

Mr. CURTIS. $5 to $10, yes.

Mr. SIMMONS. $5 to $10, at $16 and $70.

Mr. CURTIS. That is correct.

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, that was over twice what I was paying for what I already had.

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, but the point is that they are trying to say that the policy you had did not cover hospitalization. You never got paid for hospitalization.

Mr. SIMMONS. Oh, yes, I did.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand you got paid for loss of time.

Mr. SIMMONS. That was what the $122 was for, and that is when they canceled my policy. That is when I had phlebitis.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Simmons, according to their statement--I think this needs to be clarified. I do not want to get into an argument, here, but I simply want the record to show it. But according to their statement, the policy that you had with them was a perfectly good policy for loss of time, and you received almost a thousand dollars in 17 different claims for loss of time. But it did not cover at any time hospitalization. That is what they say.

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, there was supposed to be hospitalization. And here is the letter that I got from them on January 5, 1959, in which they returned my check for $9, which paid for the first quarter

of 1960.

76123-61-pt. 2- -40

Mr. CURTIS. Well, here is the point, Mr. Simmons. Insurance policies do cover certain things. They are tailored in one way or another. If there was hospitalization, you have a perfectly good claim, and I can assure you that they would have to pay. But it seems fairly obvious inasmuch as you did not pursue it that you must recognize they never did cover hospitalization.

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, that is not my understanding. In fact, I think that they covered hospitalization for several years.

Mr. CURTIS. Well, maybe we can clarify that. Now, in regard to the other two cases. As to Mr. Alfred Greenberg, it is my understanding that Mr. Greenberg could have taken out, as other people in the Continental Insurance Co. could, a $5,000 major medical for a premium of $84. He chose not to. He chose to take out the policy that he did.

Now, it is true that sometimes people prefer not to take out a policy. But this was offered to all the 65-and-older policyholders on one or two occasions.

Now, the reason I want to follow through on each of these cases: I have offered, and I still stand ready to follow through on any individual case where it looks like something might have gone wrong. Many times I can correct it, and I have.

Frequently-in fact, I would say the majority of cases turn out to be misunderstanding. I think that is the situation here.

Now, I will follow through on Mrs. Rosin's case. The claim was paid, and her problem seems to be one of cancellation. And I will try to see what the situation is there, because I think by and large the cases that have come to my attention on examination prove out just the way yours has, to be a misunderstanding; and that the insurance company in fact urged the taking out of the kind of insurance that would have protected you against the loss that you did suffer.

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, Mr. Curtis, I took my policy to the Commissioner of Insurance here in Washington, D.C. He and another gentleman went over my policy very thoroughly. He said: "They have three contradictions in your policy, under any one of which they could cancel you." He said, "You could take it to court and might make them continue your policy."

I said, "Well, what chance would I have, a little fellow like me, without any money, facing an insurance company?"

Mr. CURTIS. I will tell you right now that you would have plenty of chance. I have been in the Legal Aid Bureau in St. Louis, and I have handled hundreds of cases, and most every lawyer has done the same, for people who cannot afford it. The issue was not cancellation, sir. The issue was whether or not the policy covered the kind. of risk that you had.

When you were working, you did have some risk of loss of income, and there is such a thing as a loss of income policy, which is a different kind than hospitalization. And what they were telling you was that when you retired, this kind of benefit was no good to you, because you would not suffer that loss. And what was of concern to you should be hospitalization and medical.

Mr. SIMMONS. I asked them. I went to the office, and I asked them what assurance I had that any policy that I took out with them would not be canceled, because they had to pay. And the young man

shrugged his shoulders, and he said, "That is a risk you will have to take."

And I said, "Well, I am not about to take it."

And they were charging me about twice what I was paying, and I was getting about a third of the coverage.

Mr. CURTIS. But it was for a different kind of thing. The second policy was hospitalization; not loss of income.

Mr. SIMMONS. Does he mention any payments to me between the time of 1952 and 1958?

Mr. CURTIS. No. Oh, there is no disagreement that this particular policy was of no avail to you, because of what had happened. The circumstances had changed, where you were not working, and so you had no risk of loss of time at your job. That is the point.

And as I say, it is as if you had a home that you sold. You had insurance on the home when you owned it, but there was no sense in carrying the insurance if you sold the house.

Mr. SIMMONS. But they accepted my premium from 1952 to 1958 or 1959, and I was retired in 1952.

Mr. CURTIS. Well, if they did that, then I certainly do think you have got a complaint there, because they should not have accepted your premium on something that certainly was not anything that you could ever recover on by the terms of the policy.

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, I figured I just lived longer than they expected

me to.

As to Mr. Greenberg and Mrs. Rosin, I was just giving this state

ment.

Mr. CURTIS. Look, I am awfully glad you did. We need more of these specific cases, so that we can follow them down and find out what the problems are. I am so fed up on these general statements that people are making. They do not even take the trouble to find. out if they are accurate or not. This gives us something to work on. We deeply appreciate it.

Mr. SIMMONS. On this Mutual of Omaha, they accepted my payments after I retired in 1952 because of a heart attack in California. And they accepted my payments right up until the time they had to pay the $122 claim.

Mr. CURTIS. Without knowing anything further about it, I would say that if they took payments after the time you retired, they were in error.

Mr. SIMMONS. I have got the checks to show.

The CHAIRMAN. On the basis of what they said in the hearings to which Mr. Curtis referred, they were taking your premium for insurance against a risk that you did not have.

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe you should have gotten a refund of your premiums.

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, let me read the letter that they wrote to me when I returned the checks, to see if it jibes with what you have there.

DEAR MR. SIMMONS: Thank you very much for your offer to continue your 1936 policy by submitting the $9 premium for the tenure. It is our understanding that one of our representatives recently called on you and explained to you the necessity for an adjustment of your insurance contract. He also gave you the opportunity to apply for one of our new plans, and it is our understanding that you did not wish to avail yourself of this coverage.