[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
July 31, 1954


JAMA. 1954;155(14):1240. doi:10.1001/jama.1954.03690320044013

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


It is not at all surprising that the general public and the medical profession are confused by the pros and cons that have been voiced concerning the "reinsurance" proposals introduced in Congress at the request of the administration. "Reinsurance," a technical term, has been distorted as it has been used to define current legislation. Recent pronouncements by the administration and the heated debate last week in the House of Representatives also suggest that a restatement of the general purposes of the bills and the stand of the medical profession is in order.

The two bills, H. R. 8356 and S. 3114, dealing with this subject were introduced by the chairmen of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, respectively, at the request of the administration. Briefly, these bills would do two things. First, they would authorize the Secretary of the Department of

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview