问答题The On-going Debate over Healthcare Reform　　It seems that the government’s so-called Blue Ribbon Commission has already decided what plan it will propose without undertaking any public consultation and is now merely engaged in a PR campaign to convince

Yesterday afternoon 2 cargo surveyors appointed by the consignee came on board for investigation. I told them the cargo was loaded between Aug.14th.and 16th. Under favorable weather without any remarks on（）.

From the passage, it can be seen that the author _____.

A customer is running system management software on one of their Windows xSeries servers， and the software seems to slow down their database application over time.  The customer is running IBM Director in their environment.  Which IBM Director tool can they utilize to guarantee processor time for the different applications and optimize the server performance？（）

Healthcare Reform　　During the past two decades, all of the industrialized nations have enacted some form of healthcare reform. America is no exception. Just a few years ago, the U. S. was consumed by a vigorous public debate about healthcare. In the end, the debate reaffirmed that the U. S. would retain its essentially market-based system. Instead of reform imposed from the top down, 3 the American healthcare system underwent some rather profound self-reform, driven by powerful market forces. The market—not the government—managed to wring inflation out of the private healthcare market. 4　　Today, it appears that U.S. healthcare costs are again on the rise. At the same time, American patients—like patients elsewhere—are becoming more vocal5 about the restrictions many face in their healthcare plans. Talk of government-led reform is once again in the air. 6　　We must think twice, though, before embarking on “reform” if that means imposing further restrictions on our healthcare markets. The more sensible course is to introduce policies that make the market work better—that is, to the advantage of consumers. I base this argument on our company’s decades of experience in healthcare systems around the world, which has given us a unique global perspective on the right and wrong way to reform healthcare. The wrong way is to impose layer after layer of regulation and restrictions. We have seen this approach tried in many countries, and we have always see it fail—fail to hold down costs, and fail to provide the best quality care. Medicine is changing at so rapid a pace that no government agency or expert commission can keep up with it. Only an open, informed and competitive market can do that. This lesson holds true for the U. S., and for all countries contemplating healthcare reform. Free markets do what governments mean to do—but can’t.　　The right approach10 is to foster a flexible, market-based system in which consumers have rights, responsibilities, and choices. Healthcare systems do not work if patients are treated as passive recipients of services: 11 they do work if consumers are well-informed about quality, costs, and new treatments, and are free to act responsibly on that knowledge.　　Of course, reform should never be driven purely by cost considerations. Instead, we ought to devise new ways of funding healthcare that will make it possible for all patients to afford the best care. Ideally, these new approaches would not only reward individuals and families but also encourage innovation, which can make healthcare systems more efficient, more productive, and ultimately of greater value for patients.　　The path we choose will have enormous implications for all of us. We are in a golden age of science, and no field of scientific inquiry holds more promise than that of biomedicine. 13 Not only can we look forward to the discovery of cures for chronic and acute disease, but also to the development of enabling therapies that can help people enjoy more rewarding and productive lives.14 New drugs are already helping people who would once have been disabled by arthritis or cardiovascular disease stay active and mobile.15 More effective anti-depressants and anti-psychotics are beginning to relieve the crippling illness of the mind, allowing sufferers to function normally and happily in society. The promise is quite simply—one of longer, healthier lives. 16　　What is at issue are the pace and breadth of discovery, and how quickly we can make the benefits of our knowledge available to the patients who need them.　　Therefore, the policy environment the biomedical industry will face in the next century may make or break the next wave of biomedical breakthroughs. 17 Will that environment include protection for intellectual property, freedom for the market to determine price, and support for a robust science base? 18 Will healthcare systems nurture innovation, or remove incentives for discovery? Will they give consumers information and options, or impose stringent rules and regulations that limit access and choice? For the U. S., as for the rest of the world, the healthcare debate is by no means over. And for all of us, the stakes are higher than ever.

For years an acrimonious debate over how to protect heroin users impeded efforts in the U.S. to control the spread of AIDS.

As the investigation concludes, the debate over the origins of the scandal, the merits of the federal in vestigation, and the legal authority of the prosecutor have intensified greatly.

The On-going Debate over Healthcare Reform　　It seems that the government’s so-called Blue Ribbon Commission has already decided what plan it will propose without undertaking any public consultation and is now merely engaged in a PR campaign to convince us they have the answer.　　This seems a little head over heels to us. Since it is our money and our health that is in question, shouldn’t we have been consulted at the break about which way we want to go?　　There are several models to achieve healthcare reform, and not all of them require us to hand more money over to keep government bureaucrats in big offices. Purely private healthcare may have big problems—but so does the socialised medicine the commission is recommending.　　For example, Canada’s universal system of socialised medicine is now busily engaged in transferring costs from the public to the private sector… by reducing covered expenses, by de-insuring some expenses and so on.　　Medical authorities are on record as saying that in an effort to manage costs, hospital stays are being shortened (or even dispensed with altogether).　　So while we in the Bahamas are citing universal ‘free’ health care as the answer to our problems, in Canada there is an uncoordinated scramble by the public system to reduce and offload the effects of rising health care costs. And we won’t even mention the litany of complaints from users who have to wait for poor service.　　But what mostly concerns us about the Blue Ribbon Commission is that they have plumped for social health insurance without determining the cost of their recommended programmer, or of the alternatives.　　And they do not seem to have taken into account the impact this plan will have on the fiscal deficit or on our individual pockets. Apparently, the position is that whatever the cost, this is the plan that will be presented to parliament.　　An initiative so far-reaching and so potentially damaging to our economy, should require more careful assessment of the alternatives in public. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. And we do not believe that a small group of consultants constitutes ‘the public’.

Looming over the debate about human interference in the world’s boreal forests is an as yet unanswerable question: Will the effects of global warming eventually dwarf man’s impact?