think tuberculosis could be wiped out in the United States within a generation, syphilis within a shorter time. But this could be done only through a Nationwide campaign, with services readily available to everybody. One major political force interested in going beyond the provisions of the Taft bill is United States labor. With hopes of big wage boosts collapsing, union negotiators are now going down the line for fuller health coverage as well as cash benefits paid for by employers. Management will be hard put to refuse this demand altogether. In the next few years an estimated 8,000,000 workers are likely to get new or increased health protection as a result. Senator Taft's prescription, limited coverage for bottom-income groups, differs of course from the unions' proposal-full coverage for all union labor. But by one of the ironies of politics, both efforts may have the same long-run effect. Once you provide basic medical care for 35,000,000 citizens under the Taft bill and for additional millions of industrial workers under union contracts, the objection to going the whole hog diminishes. The cost would be much cheaper if it were spread over the whole population. And coverage would be more complete. The financial and administrative burden of health and welfare clauses would be taken off private enterprises and placed on official agencies. One proposal for such a program has been embodied in the administrationsponsored Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill. It is expected to be financed by a 3 percent pay-roll levy divided between employees and employers, plus a general appropriation for research and training. Payments from this fund would be entrusted for disbursement to the Surgeon General, who would also set standards. But day-to-day administration would be left to States, local communities, and existing medical groups. Doctors would continue, if they preferred, to practice on the present fee system, with payments made to them out of the insurance fund. Doctors who wished to practice on a full or partial salary basis could do so. Those who wished to remain completely outside the system would be free to do so. Patients could go to any general practitioner in the system. The doctor also would be free to accept or reject patients. It's worth nothing that the British Medical Association once fought a national health system based on compulsory health insurance just as stubbornly as the AMA does now. After a Conservative government set one up anyway, the British Medical Association swung to support. One reason: doctors' incomes went up. Like a number of distinguished medical men, some United States business leaders have come to regard a national health program as a desirable extension of our present social-security laws. Executives like Charles Luckman, president of Lever Bros. : Gerard Swope, president of General Electric; and David Sarnoff, of RCA, feel this way. Total cost of a national health program has been set at $4,000,000,000 yearly. That's about what we pay now, in doctors' bills, taxation for public health service, etc., for such medical care as we get. Socially and economically, it would seem sensible to organize medical services for faster progress toward the goal of medical science, which is not just care in sickness, but positive health for the individual and for the entire community. Senator PEPPER. Mr. Hansen, you do feel. then, that the organization of this Cooperative Health Federation of America for which you speak, and the sentiments that you have here expressed by the rural people and people who might be considered of average intelligence does represent a growing demand on the part of the American people that there may be some plan worked out by which adequate medical care, including all phases of medical care, may be made available and accessible to the whole American people? Mr. HANSEN. There is no question about it. Senator PEPPER. Thank you very much. Senator SMITH. Members of the committee, before we recess, and in order to emphasize the point, which I think we are very much interested in, that we are not discussing partisan matters now, because the so-called Taft bill, S. 545, and the so-called Wagner-Murray bill that Senator Murray introduced here, S. 1320, and Senator Murray is a Democrat and Senator Taft a Republican, but I can state there are differences of opinion in my own Republican Party on the questions concerned, and I know there are in the Democratic Party, but I have here given to me by a friend of mine a copy of a letter from Dr. R. B. Robins, Camden, Årk., which he suggested that I insert in the record to show his view at least. This letter is addressed to Mr. Gael Sullivan, executive director of the Democratic National Committee. Dr. Robins is a member of the Democratic National Committee, the national committeeman from Arkansas, and he writes under date of July 2, 1947: DEAR MR. SULLIVAN I have your bulletin of June 21, 1947, in which you continue to urge the idea of compulsory health-insurance legislation. To me and the people in my section of the country, this is a very repulsive project of the Democratic Party. It is very well known that this is the brain-child of such radical social reformers as Michael Davis and Isidore Falk, who would like to see our democratic system transformed into a totalitarian system. It seems to me that it is high time for the Democratic Party to stop pushing the philosophy of bureaucracy in our country. The present program seems to have as its ultimate object the destruction of the principal of self-reliance of the American citizen and making him more and more dependent upon the central Government. This leads to the loss of freedom as it has in all of the nations which have tried it. The tax gatherer this year will take more than one-fourth of our national income. Yet, our party continues to try to push programs that will increase this. The national health program which you are advocating is a compulsory program. There is no choice. It would build one of the greatest bureaus in the history of the world-a multi-billion-dollar bureaucracy. I would like to see the Democratic Party get away from the philosophy of Government paternalism and get back to the basic principles that made this Nation great. I am looking forward to seeing you next Wednesday. Sincerely yours, R. B. ROBINS, M. D., National Committeeman, Senator SMITH. I am merely offering this because of the suggestion sometimes made that all the criticism of this approach comes from the Republican Party, and I just want it to appear that there is a difference of opinion among Democrats as well as Republicans, and this evidence is from a member of the Democratic National Committee, addressed to the executive director of the Democratic National Committee by Dr. R. B. Robins, Democratic national committeeman for Arkansas, Camden, Ark. So it appears that we are approaching the subject, I might say, from a bipartisan standpoint, and we are trying to solve the problem, and we have different points of view in both parties. Senator PEPPER. I guess we will probably find that a lot of Democratic doctors are against S. 1320 and a lot of Republican workers and farmers are for it. Senator SMITH. Mr. Hansen, we appreciate very much your coming and thank you again for the fair way in which you have presented the matter. Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the attention, the courtesy, and good humor of the committee. Senator SMITH. I understand that Mr. Joseph Louchheim and Michael Davis, who were to be here today, will be here tomorrow morning. Senator MURRAY. At the conclusion of the meeting yesterday I talked to you about it, Senator, and as a result of my conversation then I believe I told Michael Davis and the other gentlemen that they would not have to be here tomorrow. I will have to check into that and see whether I can get them here. Senator SMITH. We have on our list Mr. Lasker, I believe, and various Senators who will speak on the bill. (Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 9:30 a. m., Friday, July 11, 1947.) NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM FRIDAY, JULY 11, 1947 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH OF THE COMMITTEE Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a. m., in the committee room, Capitol Building, Senator Forrest C. Donnelĺ presiding. Present: Senators Donnell (presiding), Murray, and Pepper. At the request of Senator Smith, I am presiding this morning since it became necessary for him to be present at a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and I state he regrets very much his inability to be here this morning, as he was very anxious to attend and it is only because of the meeting of the other committee at which he finds it necessary to be present that he is not here. Is Mr. Albert D. Lasker present? Mr. LASKER. Yes, sir. STATEMENT OF ALBERT D. LASKER, NEW YORK, N. Y. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Lasker, will you please state your name, your address, and business and whether or not you are appearing for some organization or yourself? Mr. LASKER. My name is Albert D. Lasker. My address is 3313 Chrysler Building, New York, N. Y. I am president of the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation. I am appearing for myself. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Lasker, would you tell us, please, also what business you have been in for a number of years? Mr. LASKER. I was for 45 years, most of the time, the head and owner of a large advertising agency of America. Senator DONNELL. What was that? Mr. LASKER. Lord & Thomas-it went out of business when I went out of business. Senator DONNELL. Yes. Mr. LASKER. I was also part owner and helped run several other businesses, such as Pepsodent, Kotex, and Kleenex, and other packaged goods businesses, and I had clients in many others in which I had an interest, many of the largest manufacturing firms in America. Senator DONNELL. Yes. Mr. LASKER. I would say I was owner or part owner or adviser to businesses that ran into the billions during the years. 64431-48-pt. 3—21 |