2. 外语
  3. Now the politics of US health reform are in a mess but the odds on a bill passing in the end are improving. It will not be a tid

Now the politics of US health reform are in a mess but the odds on a bill passing in the end are improving. It will not be a tid

admin2011-05-16  23
问题     Now the politics of US health reform are in a mess but the odds on a bill passing in the end are improving. It will not be a tidy thing, but if it moves the country close to universal health insurance the administration will call it a success.
    At this moment, that point of view may seem too optimistic. Last Friday, the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives had hoped to produce a finished bill. But they failed, because the party’ s fiscal conservatives demanded further savings. House Democrats are also divided on revenue-raising measures.
    The Senate is dealing with the same problems: how to contain the cost of expanded insurance coverage, and how to pay for what remains, so that the reform adds nothing to the budget deficit over the course of 10 years.
    Where does the money come from remains the crucial problem. Apparently, the answer is straightforward: tax employer-provided health benefits. At present, an employer in the U. S. is free from paying tax if he pays the health insurance while an individual purchaser has to buy it with after-tax dollars. This anomaly costs nearly $ 250bn a year in revenue—enough to pay for universal coverage, and then some. Yet many Democrats in both the House and the Senate oppose to ending it. Will there be a breakthrough in terms of that aspect?
    However, to get employers out of health insurance should be an aim, not something to be feared. Many US workers have complained that if they lose their job, their health insurance will go with it and tying insurance to employment will undoubtedly worsen the insecurity.
    What about high-risk workers who are thrown on to the individual market? If the tax break were abolished as part of a larger reform which obliges insurers to offer affordable coverage to all people regardless of pre-existing conditions, it will not be a problem. It’ s true this change needs to increase tax, and many people in Congress are reluctant to contemplate in any form. But some kind of increase is inescapable. This one makes more sense than most.
    The president should say so. His Republican opponent John McCain called for this change during the election campaign and Mr Obama and other Democrats assailed the idea. So what? Mr. Obama has changed his ideas on other aspects of health reform. For example, it seems that he now prefer an individual mandate to buy insurance. Let us see a similar flexibility on taxing employer-provided insurance.
Why did the author say that to get employers out of health insurance should be an aim?
选项 A、Because employers evaded paying taxes.
B、Because tying insurance to employment was bad to workers.
C、Because it’ s illegal for employers to provide health insurance.
D、Because the administration needed to raise revenue.
答案B
解析 选项A“因为雇主逃税，”文中没有提到这一点。由第五段第二句“Many US workers have complained that if they lose their job，their health：insurance will go with it and tying insurance to employment will undoubtedly worsen the insecurity．(美国许多员工都在抱怨：失去了工作，也就失去了保险。将保险与就业捆绑在一起，毫无疑问会加剧这种不安全感。)”可知，选项B正确。选项C“因为雇主提供医疗保险违法，”文中没有提到这一点。选项D“因为政府需要提高财政收入”，让雇主脱离医疗保险并不能增加财政收入。所以，本题选择B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/bzasFFFM
本试题收录于： 公共英语四级笔试题库公共英语（PETS）分类
0

公共英语四级笔试

公共英语（PETS）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)