Questões Militares de Inglês

Read the text below and answer question.

Time to envision legal recourse for climate refugees 

   As gradually worsening climate patterns and severe weather events prompt an increase in human mobility, people who choose to move will do so with little legal protection. The current system of international law is not equipped to protect climate migrants, as there are no legally binding agreements obliging countries to support climate migrants.

   While climate migrants who flee unbearable conditions resemble refugees, the legal protections afforded to refugees do not extend to them. In the aftermath of World War Il, the United Nations established a system to protect civilians who had been forced from their home countries by political violence. Today, there are almost 20.4 million officially designated refugees under the protection of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), but there is an additional group of 21.5 million people who flee their homes as a result of sudden onset weather hazards every year.

   The UNHCR has refused to grant these people refugee status, instead designating them as “environmental migrants,” in large part because it lacks the resources to address their needs. But with no organized effort to supervise the migrant population, these desperate individuals go where they can, not necessarily where they should. As their numbers grow, it will become increasingly difficult for the international community to ignore this challenge. As severe climate change displaces more people, the international community may be forced to either redefine “refugees” to include climate migrants or create a new legal category and accompanying institutional framework to protect climate migrants. However, opening that debate in the current context would be very difficult. Currently, the atmosphere in Europe and the U.S. would most likely lead to limiting refugee protections rather than expanding them.

(Adapted from https://www.brookings.edu) 

Read the text below and answer question.

U.K. hospitals are overburdened. But the British love their universal health care  

March 7, 2018 

   When Erich McElroy takes the stage at comedy clubs in London, his routine includes a joke about the first time he went to see a doctor in Britain. 

   Originally from Seattle, McElroy, 45, has lived in London for almost 20 years. A stand-up comedian, he's made a career out of poking fun at the differences in the ways Americans versus Britons see the world - and one of the biggest differences is their outlook on health care.

   "| saw a doctor, who gave me a couple pills and sent me on my way. But | still hadn't really done any paperwork. | was like, 'This isn't right! " McElroy says onstage, to giggles from the crowd. "So | went back to the same woman, and | said, 'What do | do now?! And she said, You go home! " 

   The mostly British audience erupts into laughter.

   McElroy acknowledges it doesn't sound like much of a joke. He's just recounting his first experience at a UK. public hospital. But Britons find it hilarious, he says, that an American would be searching for a cash register, trying to find how to pay for treatment at a doctor's office or hospital. Itis a foreign concept here, McElroy explains.

   Onstage, McElroy recounts how, when the hospital receptionist instructed him to go home, he turned to her and exclaimed, "This is amazing!"

    Amazing, he says, because he did not have to pay - at least not at the point of service. In Britain, there is a state-funded system called the National Health Service, or NHS, which guarantees care for all. That means everything from ambulance rides and emergency room visits to long hospital stays, complex surgery, radiation and chemotherapy - are all free. They are paid for with payroll taxes. In addition, any medication you get during a hospital visit is free, and the cost of most prescription drugs at a pharmacy are cheap - a few dollars. (Private health care also exists in the U.K., paid out-of-pocket or through private insurance coverage, but only a small minority of residents opt for it.)

   Since the 2008 financial crisis, the U.K., like many countries, has been taking in less tax revenue - so it has had to cut spending. Its expenditure on the National Health Service has still grown, but at a slower pace than before. [...] Wait times at the emergency room are up, says Richard Murray, policy director at the King's Fund, a health care think tank.

   "If the ER is really busy, it makes the ambulances queue outside the front door - not great," Murray says. "And in some cases, the hospital is simply full."

(Adapted from https://www.npr.org)