New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-08-28
Soldiers Insurance Once More
By George Clarke Cox, Phi. d.

eft of $1,000 or more, all cost to be assumed
By the government, with no premiums payap'e
or collectible.
The companies, as it is plain to see, did ad-
wise AGAINST the insurance provision Oh AT
ticle ". They could not well do otherwise
without stultifying themselves as insurance
men. for the proposition is thoroughly I'M
sound.
II is not insurance as ordinarily understood
at all, since the insured in no sense is paying
for value received. He is paying very small
mart. no one knows how small, since war
risks are not at present to be computed; ne
is paying for no part OF administration anu
for none Of the ordinary loan or cash surreh-
der values which form part OF ordinary III
surance The 81 or So thousand cited as net
cost is merely the net premium on term
basis, and takes no account OF iegiumale
| loading" entirely aside from the commits
sions of agents The objections to TINS as an
Insurance provision are too numerous ana
technical to be entered upon here. But there
;s NO objection to death indemnity Of $1,000
or more on the group plan whereby tne SOL
diers pay no part of the cost. Let US lhdem-
nifv our defenders to the limit of our power
70 do it, but let US not call insurance that
which is something entirely different
Very Sketchy Cost
find that the cost of the whole scheme Is
dealt with very sketchly. We cannot assume
that only small portion OF the soldiers VIII
take the insurance; and If all should take
it the increased cost over the amount est.
mated in the bill would be some hundreds OF
millions of dollars. Moreover, the cost OF al
ministration and the difficulties Of admin
l he
creased by the proposed insurance feature,
have been set forth in a somewhat casual
fashion.
For EXAMPLE. Mr.. McAdoo's statement of the
cost of insurance for the first year is VS.
900 900; sll25O0,Oo0 for the second year Mr..
Wolfe. actuary for the government, has ex-
planned frankly that these figures are based
upon 25 per cent of the soldiers taking in
surance. and taking it for only $4,000 each.
Now, if every one of the soldiers should take
tho maximum amount the cost would be the
first wear 1868 100000 and the second year
81 300 900 600. What it would be the third
wear heaven only knows. OF course, recog-
nize that it is extremely unlikely that the to-
tai number would take the total amount. But
this. at least, ought to be stated. (See page
81. H. R. 5723)
Are there no watch dogs of the Treasury
any more? 1t is very we'll to propose to be
generous to our defenders. No one wants to
be other than generous. But the indemnity
provisions, modelled upon and closely follow
ing the workmens compensation laws Of vari-
Gus states, are already generous beyond any
thing known. If these were supplemented by
a death indemnity of 81 900 or $4,000, accord
ing TO rank and pay-the only feasible demo-
cratic way--we should be dealing with those
who risk all for us as generously as we have
the power TO deal. This plan proposes to
care for soldiers without getting into PEN
sion scandal and mudde beyond anything in
the past.
General Plan Is Admirable
The bill as a whole is we'll conceived and
admirable 1t is not just to accuse of mig
gardliness or lack of patriotism those who
criticise it in the spirit Of helpfulness. And
it will be, to my mind, great disaster II the
insurance companies, for fear of being mis-
understood, refrain from such criticism. They
are the experts in this line. l do not believe
that they are hostile in any way. Their ap-
proval of the $1,000 or more death indemnity
is an approval of my suggestion for group in
surance, an approval of which was unaware,
and it is therefore the more grateful. In so
far as this is insurance of kind practised
by many of the largest companies, it seems to
me that my second claim is made good, viz,
that the companies advised the government
itself to insure soldiers-all the more because
they advise that the entire cost be met by the
government.
What Mr.. Baldwin says about the new re-
gime does not seem to me pertinent to this
subject, for no one has criticised the COM
pensation and indemnity side of the bill, ex
cept in details. We all want to protect the
soldiers, but we want to face the cost fully.
Then alone can we take steps to meet it,