GWD17-24-27

wycg

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:  A

定位在23-29行.

C不对是因为: American Medical Association是反对这项计划(定位在5-8行)的,这和AFL观点(也是反对)是一至的.

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:  C

三段首句有说: “Yet the AFL’s voluntarism had accommodated certain exceptions”.这和AFL主要观点(在二段)有点不同,三段接下来就说的这事. C选项就是这个意思.