[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 22, 1965


JAMA. 1965;191(12):15-17. doi:10.1001/jama.1965.03080120079045

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


King-Anderson More Expensive.—  Rep Durward Hall (R, Mo) told the House that charges that the Herlong-Curtis Eldercare bill would cost more than the Administration's King-Anderson proposal are untrue.The lawmaker said King-Anderson would run from two to four times the expense of Eldercare.King-Anderson would cost $1.8 billion its first full year, according to the Administration's own estimates, and increase to $3.8 billion in ten years.Hall declared:"I submit that the Eldercare bill will not, and in fact could not, cost more than $947 million, and a portion of this amount would be paid for by the states."Noting that some labor leaders have charged that the Eldercare bill would be too costly, Hall said the time has come to set the records straight.The Eldercare bill provides for federal-state funds to purchase private health insurance premiums for the needy elderly, to pay for part of the cost for

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