New York was the fourth state to enact a disability benefits law, following California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The New York statute has created controversy, and the discussion herewith presented points up the nature of that controversy. The dispute as to the merits of the New York law will hardly be settled by the discussion herein presented, and the editors expect the discussion to be continued in the pages of this periodical. Robert Tilove is research director of Martin E. Segal & Co., consultants on group health, group insurance, and pension programs, with offices in the City of New York. M. William Zucker is director of the Governmental Affairs Department of the Commerce and Industry Association of New York. Comments are by Herman A. Gray, member of the faculty of New York University and formerly chairman of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council; Solomon Barkin, director of research, Textile Workers Union of America (CIO); Lazare Teper, director of the Research Department, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union; Martin F. Hilfinger, president of Associated Industries of New York State; Charles W. Rivoire, assistant secretary of W. T. Grant Company; and Harold R. Elliot, comptroller of Wellington-Sears Company. The statements made by the writers are entirely their own and do not necessarily represent the views of their organizations. EDITOR preserve maximum scope in private enterprise. A compulsory disability benefits law is an extension into new territory of the state's interest in public welfare. In our earlier forms of social insurance, the responsibility of the state was more apparent. Workmen's compensation substituted for the existing liabilities of emp loyers. Unemployment compensation and the old-age and survivors insurance program cover risks for which the responsibility of society can readily be established. Disability insurance laws cover a different sort of hazard. They compensate for wage loss due to temporary nonoccupational disability, a risk attributable neither to the employment nor especially to society. Moreover, the hazard is one against which many individual groups are able to protect themselves. Nevertheless, compulsory legislation is increasingly regarded as necessary if comprehensive coverage is to be assured. Four American jurisdictions preceded New York in enacting such a law: Rhode Island (1942), Congress in its legislation for railroad workers (1946), California (1946), and New Jersey (1948). In all of these instances, a pre-existing tax for unemployment insurance was converted to use for disability benefits, a relatively painless process. New York's enactment,