 Longing watches have won ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals and more honors for accuracy than any other timepiece. Longing, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Longing Whittenall Watch Company. It's time for the Longing Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A presentation of the Longing Whittenall Watch Company, maker of Longing, the world's most honored watch, and Whittenall, distinguished companion to the world-honored Longing. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Longing Chronoscope. Mr. Henry Haslett, editor of the Freeman and contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine, and Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. Oscar R. Ewing, Federal Security Administrator. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Huey, our Chronoscope audience knows you, sir, as one of the more controversial figures in Washington. They know that your opponents charge that you are an advocate of state medicine. Now tonight, we would particularly like to question you on your plan to include the hospitalization benefits in the old age security program. Now will you state for us, sir, an explanation for that plan as briefly as possible? Well, Mr. Huey, the plan proposes to include among the benefits that go to the people who are entitled to old age and survivors' benefits. That is, those from whom wage deductions have been taken, paid into the fund, that there be hospitalization insurance. It would cover, by 1953, about 7 million people. There would be about 5.5 million people over 65, about a million 100,000 dependent children and roughly 400,000 widows and people who were taking care of those children. The whole idea is that we can give that hospitalization insurance up to 60 days without having to take out any additional wage deductions. Our present financing will meet that. The program would work very simply. For man, one of these people entitled to it became sick and his doctor decided he needed hospitalization. The doctor would arrange it. We don't guarantee he gets into a hospital. But if it is arranged, we do take care of the expense. Mr. Huey, what would that cost about the program, you figure? Well, our estimates, Mr. Heisler, are about $200 million a year. It may be a little more or a little less. Well, you say you don't have to increase present taxes to get that. No, because this cost would be about, if we were having a special wage deduction for it, it would be less than two-tenths of one percent, one-tenth by the employer and one-tenth by the employee. Well, our present financing can take care of that. The present rate is one-and-a-half. On the employer and one-and-a-half on the employee, a total of three. You don't think it would pay to postpone the increase in the rates instead of putting in a new program, using money for a new program? No, I do not, because I think these are so small, this program, relatively speaking, the cost is so small that it can be taken care of without any interference with the overall plan that's already been made. Well, to simplify, Mr. Hewley, our audience understands that there is an argument now over whether we shall extend federal security, federal government security, or whether we shall attempt to limit it. Now, you are one of the ones who believes that we should extend the federal security program. Well, I tell you, Mr. Hewley, I'm a firm believer in social insurance. That is where people, through wage deductions or other means, pay into an insurance program and get the benefits back. I am not one for one minute to advocate payments of these things out of general taxes. Well, our people understand or have heard a great deal about the British system and about the socialization of medicine in Britain. Now, is it your view, sir, that you approve that system, that British system, and that you would like to see ultimately such a system in the United States? No, there are many differences between our proposal for national health insurance and what the British propose. The big difference, Mr. Hewley, is that the British pay eight-ninths of the cost out of general taxes, and we wouldn't pay a penny out of general taxes. You're not in favor of paying for any of these services out of general taxes. No, sir. Well, Mr. Hewley, as I recall, in 1948, when you put forward your larger program, you yourself estimated that that program would cost something like four to six billion dollars a year. That's right. And that 1960, it would be up to ten billion dollars a year. Now, have you... I don't recall a lot. Well, anyway, but anyway, it was four to six billion around that neighborhood. Now, have you retreated from that program, or is this step one in a new program, or what is it? How do you conceive? No, I have not retreated one inch on that. My own advocacy of it, my own belief that it's a desirable thing to do. However, what I'm proposing here is not a substitute, nor is it a retreat from that at all. It's simply that here is a particular group that people over 65 years of age who have more sickness than the average, who have less money with which to pay for it, and who have less money with which to buy voluntary insurance. And I would urge this program in order to take care of them. Now, you already have the money. I mean, the government is collecting the money to cover this. Yes. You are collecting more money than you are now spending under the Federal Social Security Program. Is that correct, sir? Yes. To be quite accurate, it's always been expected in the early years that we would collect more than we'd spend building up to the time when the expenses would about equal the income. But the point that I'm making is that the income has exceeded our expectations, and whereas the outgo has not. Well, there will be some inflationary effect, won't there, of this program that is to say it will mean more expenditures than otherwise? Yes, Mr. Hazelt. There will be some, to the extent that it represents new expenditures for people who would not get the hospitalization, otherwise it would be inflationary. To the extent it merely takes the place of the money that they would otherwise pay out of their own pockets or what, it would not be. But on the other hand, you've got to balance that against the social gains that come from this hospitalization. I believe the present estimate is that present expenditures will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 billion this year since this fiscal year, and that we're going to run into a deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 billion, if I remember the official estimates. In view of that situation, do you think this is the proper time, the most appropriate time, to be pressing for increased expenditures by the federal government? Yes, because this comes out of a fund that's already in existence. This money is being collected now, and it has no relation to the general overall tax program and budgetary figures at all. But it has in relation to the money that would be spent, and your argument is that this would be offset by the humane aspect of it. Is the war a factor, sir, or a great many Americans feel that while we are spending so much money prosecuting the Korean War and trying to prevent a war with Russia, a great many Americans feel that we should cut down on other expenditures by the government. Now, you think that at least at this extent of $200 million that we should increase expenditures by the federal government? These are not expenditures by the federal government. These are monies paid out of an insurance fund that these people have paid into. But it isn't expenditure by our federal agency. It's money spent. Sure, it's money spent. Money, if a private insurance company spends money, it's money spent. Yes, but you're going to spend money. You are now putting that money in government bonds, aren't you? I'm not taking it out of the taxpayers of the country at all. This money comes out of funds that have been paid into the Social Security Fund. Well, now, what are you doing with the surplus money? You are now buying war bonds with it, a government bond, aren't you? That's true. Now, you will have $200 million a year less to invest in government bonds, won't you, sir? Well, let me put the problem this way, Mr. Ewing. At present, you say we can afford to pay this $200 million, or rather the government can, because otherwise the monies that come in are not being spent. But what assurance have we that there won't be soon demands for increasing the benefits under the old age insurance itself? Well, you have no insurance because you're perfectly sure that they will be. There will always be pressures to increase those benefits as long as we live. And it depends on the good judgment of Congress to keep the benefits in line with the income, and so far Congress has done an admirable job on it. You don't regard yourself as a socialist, do you, sir? Definitely not. I have the slightest sympathy with socialism. Well, now I'd like to ask one final question, Mr. Ewing, and to sum up, your point is that this program will cost only about $200 million a year, that it isn't in any respect an entering wedge for a larger program, and it doesn't bring you back that it's to be considered on its own merits and wholly apart from your previous proposal of a program that would cost from $46 billion. That's right. And even the larger program, Mr. Haslett, would be self-supporting. There would be a special tax for that. Yes. Well, thank you very much for being with us. Thank you. The editorial board for this edition of the Launcine Chronoscope was Mr. Henry Haslett and Mr. William Bradford Huey. Our distinguished guest was Mr. Oscar R. Ewing, Federal Security Administrator. As the regular football season comes to an end, fans look forward to the spectacular postseason championship bowl games, which have now become an established tradition. If you own a Launcine watch, or if you're hinting that you'd like to own one come Christmas time, you can take pride in the fact that in football, where time is such a vital factor, Launcine watches are used almost exclusively for official timing. Launcine timed the football games for more than 100 leading colleges during the season, as well as the games of the National Professional Football League. And practically every one of the postseason championship bowl games will also be Launcine timed. From the Rose Bowl in California to the Orange Bowl in Miami, as well as the National Football League Professional Championship. If this Christmas you wish to give just about the finest watch made anywhere in the world, let your choice be the watch of great prestige, Launcine, honored for accuracy in sport as in other fields of precise timing, honored for elegance and elegance by 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes and 28 Gold Medal Awards. And you may buy and give the Launcine watch this Christmas for as little as $71.50. Launcine, the world's most honored watch, premier product of the Launcine Witner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight again inviting you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for The Launcine Chronoscope, a television journal of important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Launcine, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Launcine, sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Launcine Witner watches. This is the CBS television network.