In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislationto guarantee universal health care in the United States. The American Medical Association, representing physicians' interests, argued for preserving physicians' free-market prerogatives. Labor activists countered these arguments by insisting that 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 until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL), a leading affiliation of labor unions; the voluntarist view stressed workers' right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and 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 national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL), an organization dedicated to the study and reform of labor laws. Gompers' opposition 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 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 that might be used to discharge disabled workers.
Yet the AFL's voluntarism had accommodated certain exceptions: the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf 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 most prominent advocacy roles antagonized Gompers. That this reform threatened union- sponsored benefit programs championed by Gompers made national health insurance even more objectionable.
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 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 and in 1935 the AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation.
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
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 D。Gompers 對於國家健康保險的反對,部分是基於他的信念,即健康保險可能導致某些工人不公正地失去他們的工作。根據閱讀材料中的描述,這是 Gompers 的信念,他擔心政府官員對工人生活的調查以及由雇主部分負擔的政府強制健康保險可能被用來解雇殘疾工人。
Gompers' opposition 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 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 that might be used to discharge disabled workers.最后说到通过医学检查去裁掉雇佣者们认为没有能力的工人,是C选项的一种描述