Remarks at the Annual Scientific Session of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Sodeman, all of the distinguished guests on the platform, and those attending this scientific conference, both from the United States and from abroad:

I have a very great privilege in addressing you this morning, in welcoming you to Washington and to wish you well on the occasion of this meeting, your 20th meeting of this type. And in doing so, I would like to emphasize briefly, if I might, from a personal vantage point, three subjects that I think are quite relevant to your proceedings.

I think of what the general public attitude has been over the years with regard to what we call heart attacks or heart disease. I had that brought very forcefully to my attention in 1955 when President Eisenhower suffered a heart attack and when the heart of all of America stopped for a moment, and for that matter, the heart of the world.

At that time, I think the people of America and perhaps people in the world learned more about what heart attacks were, and what they were not, than they ever learned before as they watched the patient recover and then also watched what he did afterwards.

Before that time, I think the general opinion was that a heart attack was either fatal in a completely physical way or, if the individual recovered, that he would have to live afterwards in a very slowed down way, somewhat like a vegetable, but not an active life.

And, of course, President Eisenhower disproved that by serving 6 years more in the most demanding task in the world, or at least one that is considered to be that. And then, after that, President Johnson, who suffered a heart attack--and I recall going out to visit him when he was Majority Leader when I was Vice President in 1956--went on to be elected Vice President and then President of the United States and worked day and night in both capacities serving his country.

And then just 2 days ago, I presented the national heart award to the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, and in 1966 Carl Albert, a Congressman that I came to the Congress with just 24 years ago, suffered a heart attack. He was elected Speaker by his colleagues, the highest honor that anybody can receive in the House of Representatives.

And I can assure you that the Speaker, perhaps even more than the President, has a very, very long day and a very demanding one.

And so, we think of all of those incidents and what they mean, what they mean in giving hope to individuals who may suffer from heart disease, hope that they may go on to live an active life.

Also, we think of what it means in terms of what you have contributed, all of you in this great profession. At a time when the medical profession is under assault from various quarters due to the inability to spread medical care as adequately as some think it should be spread, it is well to pay tribute to the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of dedicated people in the medical profession who, working in the most effective way they can, are making such enormous progress against the great diseases that either kill or cripple men and women and have killed and crippled them through the years.

We also think of another fact. We realize that while these three striking examples of public men suffering heart attacks and then coming back to live even more active lives, while they indicate the progress that has been made in the treatment of this disease, we also realize that we have a very long way to go.

I noted, for example, that among deaths caused by illness, over half result from cardiovascular ailments. And I noted, for example, on the other side of the ledger a rather tragic story over the weekend. One of the most intelligent young men-he was a young man certainly by my standards, and most of us here--a columnist, Geoffrey Drummond, at 40 years of age, had a heart attack and died. And I think of that young man and all of the promise of his life gone, and I think of what you might do so that the number of those incidents might be reduced. They have been reduced over the past. They can be reduced more, as I understand from my friend John Lungren ¹ and others who are expert in this field.

¹ Dr. John C. Lungren, medical adviser to the President and member of the American College of Cardiology.

And so, this gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to this organization and your colleagues in America and around the world, who have worked in this field, have made such a contribution, and to wish you well in the future.

And second, to emphasize that while in the State of the Union Message I referred to a general health initiative and particularly in the field of research, that one of our major objectives would be a new effort with regard to cancer, $100 million initial effort and more, as is necessary, to provide the research that is needed in that area, that the fact that we are putting emphasis in that area does not mean reducing the emphasis in the area in which you are so vitally interested, because if you look at the figures, or the numbers as they are referred to usually, you will find that the amount of funds appropriated, or that we have asked the Congress to appropriate in the field of research for cardiovascular ailments, has increased by 16 percent over 1970.

And so we will continue to have government support, where government support is proper, for the research that is so important to the success of your life's work.

And then, finally, on a broader landscape, may I speak very briefly about a great debate that is now beginning in America. It will go on throughout this year and decisions will be made that will affect your lives, it will affect the lives and the health of all the American people, and I refer, of course, to the debate about what we should do with regard to health care programs generally.

Honest men in the House and the Senate disagree as to what is the best approach. All agree that we should find better methods to see that all individuals who need medical care have an opportunity to obtain it.

However, I think also those who look beyond the demand side of the ledger and look to the supply problem also realize that it really doesn't make much sense to provide the ability for every individual to go to a doctor when he is ill if the doctor isn't able or isn't there or is actually not really capable, in terms of medical proficiency, to deal with the problem.

What I am saying very simply is this: That as we look, as we do now, at how we do a better job with regard to the quantity of medical care, let's not destroy the quality of medical care in the United States of America.

For example, when I go into a doctor's office, I know that for an annual physical they have to fill out a form. And I know they go over the same questions they have gone over year after year. I get so tired of answering those same questions. They read it--last year's. But they say the answer might be different this year. So, I try to not give a different answer just to be sure. I am going to bring a mimeographed form next time.

But in any event, I also know this: that I don't want my doctor to spend so much time filling out forms that he doesn't spend enough time doing what is needed to be done as a doctor for the patient.

And that is why in the emphasis on the medical program that I will be submitting to the Congress of the United States, it will properly, as I think all of us would want it, try to provide more adequately for the needs of all Americans and of all incomes, the needs that they may have for acquiring medical care when they need it.

But on the other hand, let us be sure that in doing so that we remember that what is most important is not to be able to afford a doctor, but to be sure that it is a good doctor. Let us also remember that we do not want the doctors and those in the medical profession to be smothered under a whole, huge bureaucracy and under a great pile of government forms.

Let us do everything that we can, in other words, to keep the doctor, the professional man or the professional woman, free from the terrible crushing burden of bureaucracy which would otherwise not only take his time but destroy his initiative.

That is, in other words, the objective that we must try to achieve in this area as we deal with the problem of medical care in the United States.

Now, in order to achieve that objective, we need assistance. And that is why I say to my friends in the medical profession: I know how you are concerned, and you should be concerned, about what is the government going to do to us now. How many more forms are we going to have to fill out? Is the government going to adopt a program in this country that we think has failed in other countries and, therefore, should not be applied on us?

And the answer is there is no program for medical care in the United States or in any other [nation of the] world that will be good for the patient unless it is one that the doctors support, because we have to have the cooperation of the medical profession.

So we want your advice, we want your cooperation, we want to work together with you in developing a program that will do what is needed to be done and do the best for our patients, your patients, but also that will enable you to meet your responsibilities as unhampered as is possible by Federal bureaucracy, red tape, and the like.

That is our objective, and I will simply say in conclusion that as this debate goes on through the year that I know that we will have your cooperation.

I know the dedicated men and women that are in this profession. And I can assure you that we will listen. We want your advice because, as I said in the State of the Union, we have one great goal.

The United States is very fortunate that we are truly the wealthiest nation in the world, and, with your help, we will make it the healthiest nation in the world.

Thank you.