|
lz看一下是这篇吗？谢谢 Q24 to Q27: In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislation Line to guarantee universal health care in the (5) United States. The American Medical Association, representing physicians’ interests, argued for preserving physicians’ free-market prerogatives. Labor activists countered these arguments by insisting that (10) health care was a fundamental right that should be guaranteed by government programs. The labor activists’ position represented a departure from the voluntarist view held (15) until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL), a leading affili- ation of labor unions; the voluntarist view stressed workers’ right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and (20) represented national health insurance as a threat to workers’ privacy. AFL president Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers, had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for (25) national health insurance that were advo- cated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL), an organization dedicated to the study and reform of labor laws. Gompers’ opposition (30) to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers’, not workers’, interests. Gompers feared the probing of government (35)
bureaucrats into workers’ lives, as well as the possibility that government-mandated health insurance, financed in part by employers, could permit companies to require employee medical examinations (40) that might be used to discharge disabled workers. Yet the AFL’s voluntarism had accom- modated certain exceptions: the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf (45) of injured workers and child laborers. AFL officials drew the line at national health insurance, however, partly out of concern for their own power. The fact that AFL outsiders such as the AALL had taken the (50) most prominent advocacy roles antagonized Gompers. That this reform threatened union- sponsored benefit programs championed by Gompers made national health insurance even more objectionable. (55) Indeed, the AFL leadership did face serious organizational divisions. Many unionists, recognizing that union-run health programs covered only a small fraction of union members and that unions represented (60) only a fraction of the nation’s workforce, worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures. This activism and the views underlying it came to prevail in the United States labor movement (65) and in 1935 the AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q24: The passage suggests which of the following about the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL regarding health care? - It was opposed by the AALL.
- It was shared by most unionists until 1935.
- It antagonized the American Medical Association.
- It maintained that employer-sponsored health care was preferable to union-run health programs.
- It was based on the premise that the government should protect child laborers but not adult workers.
Answer: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q25: The primary purpose of the passage is to - account for a labor organization’s success in achieving a particular goal
- discuss how a labor organization came to reverse its position on a particular issue
- explain how disagreement over a particular issue eroded the power of a labor organization
- outline the arguments used by a labor organization’s leadership in a particular debate
- question the extent to which a labor organization changed its position on a particular issue
Answer: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q26: Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 42-45 (“Yet … child laborers”)? - It elaborates a point about why the AFL advocated a voluntarist approach to health insurance.
- It identifies issues on which the AFL took a view opposed to that of the AALL.
- It introduces evidence that appears to be inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders.
- It suggests that a view described in the previous sentence is based on faulty evidence.
- It indicates why a contradiction described in the previous paragraph has been overlooked by historians.
Answer: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q27: According to the passage, Gompers’ objection to national health insurance was based in part on his belief that - union-sponsored health programs were less expensive than government-sponsored programs
- most unionists were covered by and satisfied with union-sponsored health programs
- it would lead some employers to reduce company-sponsored benefits
- it could result in certain workers unfairly losing their jobs
- the AFL should distance itself from the views of the American Medical Association
Answer:
[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-22 10:55:46编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2006-8-22 10:20:00
楼主
