未分类题

These are tough times for Wal-Mart, America's biggest retailer. Long accused of wrecking small-town America and condemned for the stinginess of its pay, the company has lately come under fire for its meanness over employees' health-care benefits. The charge is arguably unfair: the finn's health coverage, while admittedly less extensive than the average for big companies, is on a par with other retailers'. But bad publicity, coupled with rising costs, has stirred the Bentonville giant to action. Wal-Mart is making changes that should shift the ground in America's health-care debatE.
One strategy is to slash the prices of many generic, or out-of-patent, prescription drugs. Wal-Mart recently announced that its Florida stores would sell a list of some 300 generic drugs at $4 for a month's supply; other states will follow. That is above cost but far less than the prices charged by many pharmacy chains, which get profits from fat margins on generics.
Wal-Mart's critics dismiss the move as a publicity stunt. The list of drugs includes only 143 different medicines and excludes many popular generics. True, hut short-sighteD.Wal-Mart has transformed retailing by using its size to squeeze suppliers and passing the gains on to consumers. It could do the same with drugs. Target, another big retailer, has already announced that it will match the new pricing. A'Wal-Mart effect' in drugs will not solve America's health-costs problem: generics account for only a small share of drug costs, which in turn make up only 10% of overall health spending. But it would help.
The firm's other initiative is more controversial. Wal-Mart is joining the small but fast-growing group of employers who are controlling costs by shifting to health insurance with high deductibles.
From January 1st new Wal-Mart employees will only be offered insurance with very low premiums (as little as $11 a month for an individual) but rather high deductibles (excesses): an individual must pay at least the first $1,000 of annual health-care expenses, and on a family plan, the first $3,000. Unusually, Wal-Mart's plan includes three doctor visits and three prescription drugs before the big deductible kicks in. Since most employees go to the doctor less often than that, the company argues, they will be better off because of the lower premiums. That may be true for the healthy, say critics; sicker workers will see their health costs soar.
This debate, writ large, is the biggest controversy in American health care today. The Bush administration has been pushing high-deductible plans as the best route to controlling health costs and has encouraged them, with tax-breaks for health-saving accounts. The logic is appealing. Higher deductibles encourage consumers to become price-conscious for routine care, while insurance kicks in for catastrophic expenses.
Early evidence suggests these plans do help firms control the cost of health insurancE.But critics say that the savings are misleading. They argue that the plans shift costs to sicker workers, discourage preventative care and will anyway do little to control overall health spending, since most of the $2 trillion (a sixth of its entire GDP) that America spends on health care each year goes to people with multiple chronic diseases.
For the moment, relatively few Americans are covered bv these' consumer-directed'plans. But they are becoming increasingly popular, especially among firms employing low-skilled workers. And now America's biggest employer has joined the high-deductible trenD.That is bound to have an impact.
According to the passage, the health-care benefits of Wal-Mart
A.are to be increased greatly due to others' accusation.
B.started to incur much criticism a long time ago.
C.are at the same level as those of other retailers.
D.will be in line with the rising costs of the commodities.

A.According
B.are
C.
B.started
D.
C.are
E.
D.will

【参考答案】

C
解析:细节题。由health-care benefits定位至首段。第二句指出Long accused of......

(↓↓↓ 点击下方‘点击查看答案’看完整答案 ↓↓↓)
热门 试题

未分类题
Blowing Hot and ColdClimate change may be slow and uncertain, but that is no excuse for inaction. One reason why uncertainty over climate change looks to be with us for a long time is that the oceans, which absorb carbon from the atmosphere, act as a time-delay mechanism. Their massive thermal inertia means that the climate system responds only very slowly, to changes in the composition of the atmospherE.Another complication arises from the relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas (GHG), and sulphur dioxide (SO2), and a common pollutant. Efforts to reduce man-made emissions of GHGs by cutting down on fossil-fuel use will reduce emissions of both the gases. The reduction in CO2 will cut warming, but the concurrent (同时发生的) SO2 cut may mask that effect by contributing to the warming.There are so many such fuzzy (模糊的) factors—ranging from aerosol particles to clouds to cosmic radiation—that we are likely to see disruptions of familiar climate patterns for many years without knowing why they are happening or what to do about them. Tom Wigley, a leading climate scientist and member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), goes further. He argues in an excellent book published by the Aspen Institute, 'US Policies on Climate Change: What Next?', that whatever policy changes governments pursue, scientific uncertainties will 'make it difficult to detect the effects of such changes, probably for many decades.'As evidence, he points to the negligible short-to medium-term difference in temperature resulting from an array of emission 'pathways' on which the world could choose to embark if it decided to tackle climate changE.He plots various strategies for reducing GHGs that will lead in the next century to the stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 550 parts per million (ppm). That is roughly double the level which prevailed in pre-industrial times, and is often suggested by climate scientists as a reasonable target. But even by 2040, the temperature differences between the various options will still be tiny—and certainly within the magnitude of natural climatic variancE.In short, in another four decades we will probably still not know if we have over-or under-shot.Ignorance is not blissHowever, that does not mean we know nothing. We do know, for a start, that the 'greenhouse effect' is real: without the heat-trapping effect of water vapor, CO2, methane and other naturally occurring GHGs, our planet would be a lifeless 30℃ or so colder. Some of these GHG emissions are captured and stored by 'sinks', such as the oceans, forests and agricultural land, as part of nature's carbon cyclE.We also know that since the industrial revolution began, mankind's actions have contributed significantly to that greenhouse effect. Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have risen from around 280ppm two centuries ago to around 370ppm today, thanks chiefly to mankind's use of fossil fuels and, to a lesser degree, to deforestation and other land-use changes. Both surface temperatures and sea levels have been rising for some timE.There are good reasons to think temperatures will continue rising. The IPCC has estimated a likely range for that increase of 1.4℃-5.8℃ over the next century, although the lower end of that range is more likely. Since what matters is not just the absolute temperature level but the rate of change as well, it makes sense to try to slow down the increasE.The worry is that a rapid rise in temperatures would lead to climate changes that could be devastating for many (though not all) parts of the worlD.Central America, most of Africa, much of south Asia and northern China could all be hit by droughts, storms and floods and otherwise made miserablE.The colder parts of the world may benefit from warming, but they too face danger. One is the conceivabA.YB.NC.NG
A.B.'
C.
Ignorance
D.
E.
F.4℃-5.8℃
G.
H.
I.Y
B.N