题目内容
Part A You will hear a talk about launching a revolution in health care system in the US. As you listen, answer Questions 1 to 10 by circling TRUE or FALSE. You will hear the talk ONLY ONCE. You now have 1 minute to read Questions 1 to 10.Questions 1 to 10: When people get sick, usually the employer and the patient will co-pay the bill.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
我国郑州商品交易所期货合约的交易时间是上午9:00～11:00和下午1:30-3:00。( )
不同的对外贸易经营权决定了经营者经营范围的不同。 ( )
Text 3 The American Academy of Pediatrics raised eyebrows recently when it released new guidelines saying that pacifiers may protect against Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The use of pacifiers for sleeping infants has always been controversial, both in families and medical circles-- the World Health Organization (WHO) says they should not be given to breast-fed infants. Yet here was an authoritative body, representing US pediatricians, suggesting pacifier use at sleep-time might actually save lives. The Washington Post’s "New SIDS policy recommends pacifiers" was typical of the headlines. What wasn’t reported was the fact that the announcement dismayed experts in several counties--including Canada--who have found no justification for such a recommendation. Some even worry the advice could increase the risk for certain babies. Neither was it reported that three of the doctors working on the research pulled out because they disagreed with some of the AAP’s conclusions. Researchers have spent years trying to unravel the mystery of SIDS, which still causes about 150 Canadian babies to die unexpectedly in their sleep each year. Studies in several countries have revealed a number of factors that increase the risk of death, including sleeping on the stomach, maternal smoking, and a family’s low socio-economical status. As for pacifiers, the AAP based its Oct. 10 recommendation on an academic paper, to be published this month in the journal Pediatrics by US pediatrician Dr. Fern Hauck. According to Hauck, four studies show that after "controlling for a variety of factors including sleeping position, usual pacifier use was associated with a significant reduced risk of SIDS." But other experts say there are too many unanswered questions. Dr. Peter Fleming, a professor of pediatrics at Bristol University and also one of the world’s leading authorities on SIDS, says researchers were surprised when they began finding that pacifiers were associated with a lower risk of SIDS. "It didn’t make sense" he says. "So we asked more detailed questions." What he and his team discovered was that the rate of pacifier use was similar for the group of babies who died from SIDS and matched groups of healthy babies. However, among habitual pacifier users there was an increased rate of SIDS death for babies who didn’t use a pacifier for their last sleep. Fleming believes the pacifier connection with reduced SIDS death might have to do with the fact that infants sleep and breathe differently when they are sucking. Fleming and his colleagues videotaped 10 infants while they slept, and observed that while sucking, they breathed more slowly and deeply and had fewer episodes of minor obstructed breathing. All these factors could conceivably protect a child from SIDS. But the improved breathing was observed not just with pacifiers but also among babies who sucked on a finger, a thumb, or their mother’s emptied breast. The potential problem with pacifiers, Fleming believes, is that babies who use them appear to "forget" how to suck. "My concern is that increased pacifier use could suppress a fundamental human behavior--finger or thumb-sucking- and we don’t know what the adverse consequences might be." The cause of SIDS is
Text 1 Immigrants to New York used to be greeted with signs like "Help Wanted: No Irish Need Apply." But these days, newcomers from Dublin are more likely to be mobbed by luxury property developers trying to hawk them ＄1 million condos (a handful of new buildings in the city are marketed mainly to rich Irish). Manhattan, like other posh areas of America, is now full of homes meant for foreigners. One in five American real estate agents sold a house to an expatriate last year. The reason is obvious: From Rio to Riyad, dollar assets are a bargain. The shift, which has been coming for several years now and will be much discussed at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, is seismic. Since the end of World War Ⅱ, the dollar’s unique role as the international currency has afforded Americans a tremendously privileged place in the world. We filled most of the seats on transatlantic flights, and bought second homes abroad. Our currency was prized by central banks. Countries pegged their monies to the dollar. Commodities were priced in dollars. The strength of the greenback, and of the economy, underpinned US global hegemony in politics and culture. Big American banks like Citibank used to fund Third World governments--now those governments are buying Citibank on the cheap. Clearly, times have changed. The dollar--along with America’s economic place in the world-- has been on a well-documented downward spiral since 2002. Back then, a euro was worth 86 cents. Today, it buys ＄1.46. Of course, the euro’s relative youth makes talk of "historic lows" easy to dismiss. More telling is that the US Dollar Index, a futures contract reflecting the dollar’s strength against six other major trading currencies, hit the lowest mark in its 35-year history just before Christmas. The shift will of course have major ramifications. Countries are beginning to de-link their currencies from the dollar, as inflationary pressures make it difficult to implement effective local monetary policy. Large global creditors like the Chinese have announced their intent to scale back on dollar reserves. European Central Bank head Jean-Claude Trichet is grousing about "brutal" movements in the dollar-euro exchange rate slashing profits at Europe’s biggest firms. Just last week, Airbus CEO Tom Enders warned that a weak dollar threatened the long-term existence of the Continental aerospace giant. Japan’s new Prime Minister Yasuo Fukada worries that the plunging greenback will bring back deflation. And OPEC is studying the possibility of pricing oil in euros-- a move that would not only amount to a vote of no confidence from some of America’s largest creditors, but would also make energy much more expensive for the United States, compounding the economic troubles which led to a weak dollar in the first place. Venuezuelan president and Bush-basher Hugo Chavez recently gloated, "The empire of the dollar is crumbling." But that’s not quite right. The majority of the world’s financial assets and central bank reserves are still held in dollars. It will take years for the euro to become a real rival; the renminbi will rise over decades. Still, what’s clear is that we have entered a new era. The United States can no longer rule the world on credit. A rebalancing has begun. The decline of the dollar means
微信支付 
支付宝支付