Transcript of President John F. Kennedy’s address at Medical Care for the Aged rally, New York, 20 May 1962
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen.. My old colleague in the House of Representatives and friend, Aime Forand, this community, ladies and gentlemen, and fellow Americans, I am very proud to be here today at one of over 33 meetings which are being held across the United States, and it is a source of regret to me that the head of the most significant organization here today, Mr. Hale, aged 77, working on this meeting, had a heart attack and was taken to the hospital. I think we should pass this legislation as soon as possible!
I come to New York because I believe the epic in which we're engaged is worth the time and effort of all of us. I come from Boston, Massachusetts, near Faneuil Hall, where for a whole period of years, meetings were held by interested citizens in order to lay the groundwork for American independence. And while there may be some who say that the business of government is so important that it should be confined to those who govern, in this free society of ours the consent--and may I say the support--of the citizens of this country is essential if this or any other piece of progressive legislation is going to be passed--make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it!
Now why are we here? What is the issue which divides and arouses so much concern? I will take a case which may be typical, a family which may be found in any part of the United States. The husband has worked hard for his life, and he is retired. He might've been a clerk, or a salesman, or on the road, or worked in a factory, stores, whatever. He's always wanted to pay his own way, and he does not ask anyone to care for him. He wants to care for himself. He has raised his own family. He has educated them. His children are now on their own. He and his wife are drawing Social Security. It may run $75, $100, $125 in the higher brackets. Let's say it's a hundred. And he has a pension, from where he worked--the results of years of effort. Now, therefore, his basic needs are taken care of: he owns his house, he has $2500 or $3000 in the bank. And then his wife gets sick--and we're all going to be in the hospital at some point, nine out of ten of us, before we finally... pass away. And particularly when we're over 65. Now she is sick--not just for a week, but for a long time. First goes the $2500--that's gone. Next he mortgages his house, even though he may have some difficulty making the payments out of his Social Security. Then he goes to his children, who themselves are heavily burdened because they're paying for their house, and they're paying for their sicknesses, and they want to educate their children, and their savings begin to go.
This is not a rare case--I talked to a member of the Congress, from my own state a week ago, who told me he was going to send his daughter away to school, but because his father had been sick for two years, he could not do it--and Congressmen are paid $22,500 a year--and that's more than most people get.
So, therefore now, what is he going to do? His savings are gone, his children's savings, they're contributing though they have responsibilities of their own--and he finally goes in and signs a petition saying he's broke and needs assistance. Now, what do we say? We say that during his working years, he will contribute to Social Security as he has to his retirement--$12 or $13 a month. When he becomes ill, or she becomes ill, over a long period of time, he first pays $90, so that people will not abuse it. But then let's say he has a bill of $1500. This bill that we're talking about, Mr. Anderson's bill and Mr. King's bill, does not solve everything--but let's say it's $1500, of which a thousand dollars are hospital bills. This bill will pay that thousand dollars in hospital bills. And then, I believe, that he and his family can meet his other responsibilities.
Now, that does not seem such an extraordinary piece of legislation, 25 years after Franklin Roosevelt passed the Social Security Act!
Well, let's hear what some people say. First, we read that the AMA is against it. And they're entitled to be against it. Though I do question how many of those who speak so violently about it have read it. But they are against it, and they're entitled to be against it if they wish. In the first place, there isn't one person here who isn't indebted to the doctors of this country. Children are not born in an eight-hour day. All of us have been the beneficiaries of their help. This is not a campaign against doctors, because doctors have joined with us--this is a campaign to help people meet their responsibilities.
There are doctors in New Jersey who say they will not treat any patient who receives it--of course they will! They are engaged in an effort to stop the bill. It is if--as if I took out somebody's appendix. Look, the point of the matter is, that the AMA is doing very well in its efforts to stop this bill. And the doctors of New Jersey and every other state may be opposed to it, but I know that not a single doctor, if this bill is passed, is going to refuse to treat any patient. No one would become a doctor--just as a business enterprise, it's a long, laborious discipline--we need more of them, we want their help, and gradually, we're getting it. The problem, however, is more complicated, because they do not comprehend what we're trying to do. We do not cover doctor's bills here. We do not affect the freedom of choice--you can go to any doctor you want, you work out your arrangements with him--what we're talking about here is hospital bills--and that's an entirely different matter. And I hope that, one by one, the doctors of the United States will take the extraordinary step of not merely reading the journals and the publications of the AMA--because I do not recognize the bill when I hear those descriptions--but, instead,... instead to write to Secretary Renikoff in Washington, or to me--and you know where I live--or to Senator Anderson, or to Congressman King if you are a doctor or opposed to this bill and get a concise explanation and the bill, and read it. All these arguments were made against Social Security at the time of Franklin Roosevelt--they're made today--the mail pours in. And at least half the mail which I receive in the White House on this issue and others is wholly misinformed. Last week, I got 1500 letters on a revenue measure; 1494 opposed, and six for. And at least half of those letters were completely misinformed about the details of what they wrote. And why is that so? Because there are so many busy men in Washington who write--some organizations have six, seven, and eight hundred people, spreading mail across the country, asking doctors and others to write in and tell your Congressmen you're opposed to it. The mail pours in to the White House, in to the Congress and Senators' offices. Congressmen and Senators feel people are opposed to it. Then they read a Gallup poll which says 75% of the people are in favor of it--and they say, 'What has happened to my mail?' The point of the matter is, that this meeting and the others indicate that the people of the United States recognize, one by one, thousand by thousand, million by million, that this is a problem... which is... solution is long overdue. And this year, I believe--or certainly as inevitably as the tide comes in, next year--this bill is going to pass.
And then other people say, 'Why doesn't the government mind its own business?' What is the government's business is the question. After Harry Truman said that 14 million Americans has enough resources so that they could hire people in Washington to protect their interests--and the rest of them depended upon the President of the United States and others.
This bill serves the public interest. It involves the government because it involves the public welfare. The Constitution of the United States did not make the President or the Congress powerless. It gave them definite responsibilities--to advance the general welfare. And that is what we're attempting to do. And then I read that this bill will sap the individual self-reliance of Americans. I can't imagine anything worse--or anything better to sap someone's self-reliance than to be sick, alone, broke, or to have saved for a lifetime and put it out in a week, two weeks, a month, two months... I've visited twice today--yesterday, and once today, a hospital, with doctors [unintelligible] for a long time--to visit my father. It isn't easy. It isn't easy. He can pay his bills! But, otherwise, I would be--and I'm not as well off as he is. But, uh... what happens to him and to others when they put their life savings in in a short time? So I must say that I believe we stand about in good company today, in halls such as this, where your predecessors, where Dave Devinsky himself actually stood, where another former President stood and fought this issue out of Social Security against the same charges.
This argument that the government should stay out, that is saps our pioneer stock--I used to hear that argument when we were talking about raising the minimum wage to a dollar and a quarter. I remember one day being asked to step out into the hall, and up the corridor came four distinguished looking men with straw hats on and canes. They told me they had just flown in from a state in their private plane, and they wanted me to know that if we passed a bill for time and a half for service station attendants--who were then working about 55 or 60 hours of straight time--it would sap their self-reliance. The fact of the matter is, what saps anyone's self-reliance is working 60 hours of straight time, or working at 85 or 95 or a dollar an hour!
All depending upon filling out a pauper's oath and going, uh, and then getting it free. Nobody in this hall is asking for it for nothing. They are willing to contribute during their productive years. That is the important principle which has been lost sight of! I understand that there's going to be a program against this bill in which an English physician is going to come and talk about how bad their plans are. May be! But he oughta talk about it in England! Because his plan--his plan and what they do in England is entirely different. In England the entire cost of medicine for people of all ages, all of it--doctors, choice of doctors, hospitals, from the time you're born till the time you die--are included in a government program. But what we're talking about is entirely different. And I hope that while he's here, he and Dr. Spock and others who have joined us will come to see what we're trying to do. The fact of the matter is, what we are now talking about doing, most of the countries of Europe did years ago--the British did it 30 years ago. We are behind every country nearly in Europe in this matter of medical care for our citizens. And then those who say that this should be left to private effort. In those hospitals in New Jersey where the doctors said they wouldn't treat anyone who paid their hospital bills through Social Security--those hospitals and every other new hospital, the American people, all of us, contribute one half, or two thirds for every new hospital, the national government. We pay 55% of all new research done. We help young men become doctors. We are concerned with the progress of this country, and those who say that what we are now talking about spoils our great pioneer heritage should remember that the West was settled with two great actions by the national government: one, in President Lincoln's administration, when he gave a homestead to everyone who went West, and in 1862 he set aside government property to build our land grant colleges. This cooperation--between and alert and progressive citizenry and a progressive government, is what has made this country great--and we shall continue as long as we have the opportunity to do so.
This matter should not be left to a mail campaign where Senators are inundated, or Congressmen, 25 and 30,000 letters; the instructions go out, 'Write it in your own hand, don't use the same words,' the letters pour in in two or three weeks, half of them misinformed... This meeting today, on a hot, good day, when everyone could be doing something else, and the 32 other meetings--this indicates that the American people are determined to put to an end to meeting a challenge with [unintelligible] when they're least able to meet it.
And then, finally, I had a letter last week that said you're going to take care of all the millionaires and they don't need it. I do not know how many millionaires we are talking about, but they won't mind contributing $12 a month to Social Security, and they may be among those who will apply for it when they go to the hospital, but what I will say is that the national government, through the tax laws, already takes care of them, because over 65 they can deduct all their medical expenses. What are are concerned about is the person not who has not got a cent, but those who have saved and worked and then get hit. And then there are those who say, well, what if you die before you're 65? Well, then you really don't care--we have no guarantees. But what we are talking about is, our people are living a long time, their housing in inadequate, in many cases their rehabilitation is inadequate. We've got great unfinished business in this country. And while this bill does not solve our problems in this area, I do not believe it is a valid argument to say, 'This bill isn't going to do the job.' It will not--but--it will do part of it. Our housing bill last year for the elderly--that won't do the job, but it will begin. When we retain workers, that won't take care of unemployment chronically in some areas--but it's a start. We aren't able overnight to solve all the problems this country faces--but is that any reason to say, let's not even try? That's what we're going to do today--we are trying. We are trying.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKPOF/038/JFKPOF-038-023