In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislation to 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. 大家能帮忙分析一下我对文中所提到几个派别所提出的观念理解正确吗？ 第一段：时间是1938年，labor activist 支持 政府保障的国家健康保险，反对AMA（AMA支持医生有自由市场的的特权，即它是站在看病人的对立面的） 第二段：1935年以前，AFL 反对政府保障的国家健康保险（认为侵犯个人隐私，且导致一些企业利用健康检查解雇残疾工人） AALL支持政府保障的国家健康保险 第二段开头又说1938年，labor activist 支持政府保障的国家健康保险是与AFL1935年以前的观点相背离的。 第三段：AFL也有与自己观点相反的例外：比如支持政府保障受伤工人和童工的利益。 但是这一段后面我就读得有点糊涂，说AFL是基于对自身权利的考虑反对国家保险。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. 这是什么意思啊？是不是说，因为看到AALL已经得到大部分拥护反对AFL，AFL基于自身权利的考虑，反对国家保险但是又同意政府保障受伤工人及童工，使得国家保险又受到更多的反对？ ｔｈｉｓ ｒｅｆｏｒｍ是不是是指ＡＦＬ同意政府保障受伤工人及童工这件事情啊？ 第四段：ＡＦＬ内部存在分歧，很多工会的人认为工会资助的保险也只代表工会的一部分人，所以也致力于州的强制性健康保险。 最后提到１９３５年以后，ＡＦＬ就清楚明白的把它之前关于政府保障国家健康保险的观念完全推翻了（即支持国家健康保险了）
我考古ＣＤ以前对于此篇阅读的分析，是把全文的几个主要观点和派别分为Ｌａｂｏｒ ａｃｔｉｖｉｓｔ，ａｆｌ 和ＡＡＬＬ三个的。但是我觉得其实Ｌａｂｏｒ ａｃｔｉｖｉｓｔ应该是和ＡＦＬ划为一派的。文中对ＡＦＬ观点的变化是否可以理解为一个倒叙的过程，即第一段是变化以后的观点（ｌａｖｏｒ ａｃｔｉｖｉｓｔ支持政府），第二段就提出ｌａｖｏｒ ａｃｔｉｖｉｓｔ跟１９３５年ＡＦＬ之前的观念不一样，从而引出ＡＦＬ后面几段变化的过程。以前有人把ｌａｖｏｒ ａｃｔｉｖｉｓｔ和ＡＦＬ划分为两派可能是因为第二段说他们不一样，可我觉得这应该算一个派别不同时期内观点的变化。 大家认为我这样理解对吗？不吝赐教阿！ | 
