天下彩4949us6363us
国内国际图片视频军事历史科技娱乐经济评论

第二阶段不忘初心

天下彩4949us6363us来源:QQ互联 2019-12-08 03:32:01 A-A+

  

  To the Editor:

  Re “A Better Path to Universal Health Care,” by Jamie Daw (Op-Ed, Feb. 21):

  Dr. Daw holds up the German-style system of nonprofit private health insurers as a better model for the United States than a single-payer system. While I can understand why the professor believes that a German-style system “builds more naturally on the American health insurance system,” it’s hard to believe that it would meet significantly less resistance from the insurance industry than a single-payer system.

  In fact, Dr. Daw actually explains why this is the case: “In an American version of this system, private insurers would have to be heavily regulated to ensure that coverage was affordable and to prevent the sort of rapid increases in premiums, deductibles and cost-sharing that have occurred over the past decade.”

  Does anyone really expect that private for-profit insurance companies will willingly convert to nonprofit status and submit to tough regulations?

  Bruce ShenitzNew York

  To the Editor:

  As an American who has lived in Germany for over 40 years and who is alive but not impoverished today because of the quality of the German health care system, I can only echo Jamie Daw. Democratic candidates would do well to examine the multipayer systems of Germany, Austria and the Low Countries and not concentrate on the less efficient single-payer systems of Canada or Britain simply because they are described in English.

  There is a place for private insurance plans in a well-organized system. Indeed, as the German system demonstrates, those of us who earn enough to be better off with private plans can actually subsidize the care offered to the publicly insured, thus raising the quality for all patients.

  Steven J. ShermanMunich

  To the Editor:

  Jamie Daw would do well to confer with Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. He proposes opening up Medicare as just one more insurer, albeit a nonprofit one, and letting market forces play out as they will. That is, of course, a great oversimplification of the senator’s thinking, but the underlying logic is beautifully simple.

  Dave GlisermanOxford, Conn.

  To the Editor:

  In her plea to Americans to adopt German rather than Canadian-style health insurance, Jamie Daw observes that we Canadians spend 3 percent of our health expenditures on administrative costs while the Germans spend 5 percent. The reason is simple: We have largely eliminated private insurance and bill the national health insurance plan directly for medical and hospital care.

  When I had a heart attack and a double bypass operation some years ago, the only requirement was that I show my health insurance card to the hospital. Does anywhere in the United States provide the same efficiency in health care?

  By contrast, the German system, as described by Dr. Daw, looks like American health care-lite — easier to afford, but still afflicted with private insurers and the incredible weight of bureaucracy required to keep the system honest.

  Harvey G. SimmonsTorontoThe writer is emeritus professor of political science at York University.

  To the Editor:

  Jamie Daw argues we can transition from Obamacare to Germany’s universal health care system far more easily than we can persuade — whom? — to accept single payer. Poll after poll shows Americans long for a single-payer plan. But we cannot ignore the differences between a country that accepts limits on profiteering and one that celebrates any and all legal means of turning any “opportunity” into a buck.

  As long as health insurance companies donate to politicians, we can’t hope for a government that eliminates their profits. Without getting rid of for-profit health insurance, we cannot get the obscene expense of treating illness in this country down to manageable levels. In spite of Dr. Daw’s optimism, we cannot transition from profitability to a system based on the values associated with compassion as long as health insurance companies continue to stand between us and the care we need to thrive.

  Candida PughOakland, Calif.

  To the Editor:

  So let me see if I have this right: Because a German chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, came up with an inefficient way to provide universal health care almost 140 years ago, the United States should now copy his system?

  There are too many flaws in Jamie Daw’s case to enumerate in a short letter, but let me take just one: Dr. Daw states, “In Germany, sickness funds leverage market power to secure lower prices, coming together regionally to negotiate contracts with doctors and hospitals.” In the United States, health insurance companies — which are much larger and have much more market power than German sickness funds — have had the ability to negotiate for lower prices for the better part of a century. The result has been what we have — by far the most expensive health care system in the world.

  What on earth makes Dr. Daw think that, with a snap of the fingers, this already existing market power will suddenly yield a better result? Private insurance companies add an extra layer of expense that is totally unnecessary. We can do better.

  Wesley H. ClarkMiddlebury, Vt.The writer is an anesthesiologist.

  To the Editor:

  I am an American expat who has been living in Germany for many years and have intimate knowledge of and experience with its health care system. Jamie Daw’s essay is not representative of the realities, pitfalls and serious systemic problems that exist in the German system and do not reflect the fact that most of the population is getting substandard care. Indeed, the German system is just as bad as the American system, just with a different set of failures that need to be addressed.

  Stew GreenBrandscheid, Germany

  To the Editor:

  One important aspect of health care that Jamie Daw does not mention is the education of medical providers. The cost of medical school in Germany is a tiny fraction of the cost in the United States. Medical schools can cost as much as ,000 per year, or 0,000 in total, for tuition, fees and living expenses. During the additional four to eight years of internship, residency and fellowship, young doctors are barely paid enough to cover basic housing and living costs. Most are not only acquiring substantial debt but also forgoing about 10 years of earning and saving.

  This is a huge sacrifice. We should be asking ourselves how much longer the best and brightest students will choose this career path unless the cost of medical education is not so onerous.

  Candace SingerPort Washington, N.Y.

  To the Editor:

  Several important features of the Bismarckian model advocated by Jamie Daw are omitted from her description of the German health insurance system. First, all of the sickness funds are, by law, not for profit; to introduce this needed feature into the American capitalist system is as radical as single payer.

  Second, people earning above a defined (inflation-adjusted) yearly amount of money are not required to join the sickness funds, and can either pay out of pocket or find other insurance; this group comprises about 10 percent of the working force.

  Third, the system operates under a gatekeeper system, in which primary care providers refer to hospital-based secondary and tertiary care providers.

  My point here is that adopting a Bismarckian system is not necessarily simpler for the United States than establishing single payer. It is possible that a hybrid homegrown model might be better than either.

  James Paul KahanPortland, Ore.The writer is a former health services policy analyst.

B:

  

  天下彩4949us6363us【我】【这】【一】【生】【简】【简】【单】【单】,【也】【圆】【满】【了】。”【陆】【爸】【爸】【笑】【了】【笑】。 【陆】【妈】【妈】【吹】【了】【蜡】【烛】:“【知】【道】【么】,【我】【和】【老】【公】【都】【希】【望】【风】【儿】【的】【病】【能】【好】。【现】【在】【好】【了】。【这】【就】【是】【我】【想】【要】【的】【圆】【满】,【一】【家】【人】【和】【和】【睦】【睦】【在】【一】【起】。【我】【是】【幸】【福】【的】。” 【轮】【到】【陆】【渐】【风】【说】【话】【了】:“【从】【没】【想】【过】【我】【会】【有】【今】【天】。【但】【我】【感】【觉】【从】【未】【有】【过】【的】【真】【实】【和】【幸】【福】。【能】【拥】【抱】【你】【们】,【我】【觉】【得】【就】【是】【恩】【赐】。【像】【寻】

  【时】【光】【荏】【苒】,【那】【些】【陪】【伴】【我】【们】【成】【长】【的】【童】【星】【如】【今】【也】【都】【长】【大】【成】【人】,【童】【年】【在】【娱】【乐】【圈】【发】【展】【顺】【风】【顺】【水】,【风】【光】【无】【限】【的】【他】【们】【长】【大】【后】【却】【都】【慢】【慢】【的】【离】【开】【娱】【乐】【圈】,【低】【调】【生】【活】,【选】【了】【一】【条】【喜】【欢】【并】【适】【合】【自】【己】【的】【道】【路】。【魏】【敏】【芝】【在】《【一】【个】【都】【不】【能】【少】》【之】【后】【慢】【慢】【淡】【出】,【如】【今】【为】【人】【妻】【为】【人】【母】【的】【她】【还】【是】【作】【家】【协】【会】【主】【席】,《【还】【珠】【格】【格】》【中】【可】【爱】【的】【小】【鸽】【子】【不】【再】【是】【个】【小】【姑】【娘】,【如】【今】30【岁】【的】【她】【是】【一】【名】【钢】【琴】【老】【师】。【如】【今】【离】【开】【娱】【乐】【圈】【的】【童】【星】【们】【都】【走】【向】【哪】【些】【行】【业】【呢】?

  【阿】【鲁】【将】【军】【道】:“【突】【围】【求】【援】。” 【什】【勒】【小】【王】【子】【不】【以】【为】【然】,“【若】【是】【能】【突】【围】【出】【去】,【早】【就】【杀】【出】【去】【了】。” 【阿】【鲁】【将】【军】【解】【释】【道】,“【我】【们】【分】【三】【路】【突】【围】,【每】【一】【路】100【人】。【只】【要】【三】【路】【中】【有】【一】【个】【人】【能】【杀】【出】【去】,【那】【么】【我】【们】【就】【有】【救】【了】。” 【各】【个】【将】【军】【都】【交】【换】【了】【一】【下】【眼】【色】,【感】【觉】【这】【是】【一】【个】【可】【行】【的】【办】【法】,【阿】【鲁】【将】【军】【见】【众】【人】【都】【同】【意】,【他】【接】【着】【说】【道】:

  【韩】【云】【朵】【答】【应】【了】【我】,【她】【会】【派】【一】【只】【小】【狐】【狸】,【待】【我】【离】【开】【后】,【就】【把】【我】【的】【人】【皮】【取】【下】【来】,【给】【她】【穿】【着】,【让】【她】【代】【替】【我】,【在】【这】【世】【上】,【陪】【着】【我】【在】【意】【的】【人】,【走】【完】【他】【们】【的】【人】【生】。 【这】【样】,【我】【就】【没】【有】【任】【何】【遗】【憾】【了】。 【三】【日】【之】【期】【结】【束】【了】。 【韩】【云】【朵】,【韩】【菲】【菲】,【苗】【秒】,【苗】【清】,【甚】【至】【是】【洛】【天】,【他】【们】【都】【来】【了】。 “【你】【确】【定】【不】【要】【再】【考】【虑】【一】【下】?” 【韩】【云】

  【弃】【坑】【是】【不】【可】【能】【弃】【坑】【的】,【这】【辈】【子】【都】【不】【可】【能】【弃】【坑】【的】。 【不】【过】,【也】【确】【实】【有】【一】【段】【时】【间】【没】【有】【更】【新】【了】。【而】【原】【因】……【只】【能】【说】,【我】【也】【很】【为】【难】【啊】。【自】【从】【开】【始】【敏】【感】【词】【之】【后】,【前】【面】【被】【封】【了】【十】【多】【章】,【至】【今】【申】【请】【都】【没】【个】【下】【文】,【明】【明】【应】【该】【没】【有】【任】【何】【的】【封】【禁】【原】【因】【才】【对】【啊】……【只】【能】【不】【断】【的】【去】【申】【请】,【然】【后】【看】【看】【啥】【时】【候】【有】【办】【法】【吧】(【听】【说】【是】【今】【年】【比】【较】【特】【殊】,【比】【较】7天下彩4949us6363us【李】【为】【这】【次】【得】【到】【的】【点】【数】【是】6000【点】,【加】【上】【上】【次】【的】【剩】【余】【倒】【有】6500【点】。【算】【一】【个】【不】【错】【的】【结】【果】。 【他】【这】【时】【打】【开】【系】【统】,【那】【蓝】【色】【的】【透】【明】【界】【面】【异】【开】【时】,【居】【然】【有】【可】【以】【选】【择】【的】【新】【的】【异】【能】【提】【示】。 【李】【为】【吃】【了】【一】【小】【惊】,“【这】【次】【没】【打】【什】【么】【特】【殊】【人】【物】【啊】,【怎】【么】【还】【有】【新】【异】【能】?” 【他】【点】【开】【一】【看】【居】【然】【还】【不】【少】。 【鹰】【眼】,【由】【政】【府】【进】【行】【的】【秘】【密】【试】【验】

  【方】【艾】【琳】【好】【像】【是】【第】【一】【次】【这】【样】【近】【距】【离】【看】【着】【顾】【洛】。 【睡】【着】【的】【顾】【洛】【没】【了】【那】【份】【让】【人】【牙】【痒】【痒】【的】【拽】【劲】【儿】,【整】【个】【人】【都】【安】【静】【的】【有】【些】【陌】【生】,【方】【艾】【琳】【把】【视】【线】【放】【肆】【的】【停】【留】【在】【他】【的】【脸】【上】,【仔】【细】【的】【看】【着】【他】【的】【每】【一】【个】【轮】【廓】,【看】【着】【看】【着】【就】【总】【会】【觉】【得】【心】【抽】【抽】【的】【疼】。 【起】【初】【对】【顾】【洛】【有】【多】【不】【以】【为】【然】,【现】【在】【就】【有】【多】【深】【陷】,【但】【是】【这】【所】【有】【的】【情】【愫】【都】【封】【存】【在】【方】【艾】【琳】【心】【里】,

  “【哎】【呀】,【这】【话】【说】【的】。” 【尹】【珩】【这】【一】【番】【话】【说】,【那】【叫】【一】【个】【合】【情】【合】【理】。 【盛】【大】【娘】【虽】【然】【还】【是】【觉】【得】【有】【些】【不】【妥】。 【但】【是】【也】【没】【什】【么】【话】【来】【反】【驳】。 【毕】【竟】,【结】【婚】【是】【人】【生】【的】【大】【事】,【一】【生】【也】【就】【这】【么】【一】【次】。 【如】【果】【带】【着】【不】【完】【美】,【那】【可】【真】【的】【是】【人】【生】【中】【最】【大】【的】【遗】【憾】【了】。 “【娘】,【您】【看】。” 【盛】【叔】【也】【被】【尹】【珩】【说】【动】【了】,【看】【了】【看】【母】【亲】【征】【求】【意】【见】。

  “【轰】!” 【龙】【三】【少】【被】【曾】【洋】【丢】【到】【地】【上】,【吃】【了】【一】【嘴】【泥】【土】,【样】【子】【非】【常】【狼】【狈】。 【不】【过】【还】【好】,【龙】【门】【功】【法】【在】【于】【练】【体】,【防】【备】【一】【流】,【龙】【三】【少】【除】【了】【形】【象】【丢】【了】,【人】【倒】【是】【没】【有】【受】【伤】。 【曾】【洋】【看】【着】【龙】【三】【少】【只】【是】【吃】【灰】,【并】【没】【有】【出】【现】【任】【何】【伤】【势】,【心】【里】【也】【是】【无】【奈】,【龙】【门】【以】【防】【备】【著】【称】,【想】【要】【揍】【他】【们】【一】【顿】【很】【容】【易】,【可】【是】【想】【伤】【人】【真】【他】【娘】【蛋】【痛】。 【姬】【无】【殇】【也】

  【六】【十】【余】【载】【的】【发】【展】【变】【迁】,【铁】【合】【金】【这】【片】【土】【地】【上】【承】【载】【了】【几】【代】【人】【的】【奋】【斗】【足】【迹】,【他】【们】【前】【赴】【后】【继】、【血】【脉】【相】【传】、【不】【改】【初】【心】、【传】【承】【使】【命】, 【他】【们】【共】【同】【耕】【耘】【在】【这】【里】,【奉】【献】【在】【这】【里】,【回】【忆】【在】【这】【里】,【希】【望】【更】【在】【这】【里】。

  • 央视新闻
  • 央视财经
  • 央视军事
  • 社会与法
  • 央视农业