KARŞILAŞTIRMALI REFAH SİSTEMLERİ VE POLİTİKALARIN ANALİZİ COVID 19'A KARŞI ALMANYA, ÇİN VE RUSYA ÜLKELERİN’DE
Author :
Abstract
Almanya, Çin ve ABD farklı idari ve refah sistemleri vardır. Refah sistemleriyle ilgili farklı politikalar uygulanmaktadır. COVID 19 gibi salgın hastalıklar bir çok alanda dönüşüme sebep olmaktadır. Bu dönüşümler politikaları, devlet yükümlülüklerini, hükümetlerin sorumluluk alanını ve sağlık hizmetlerine erişim gibi alanlardaki müdahaleleri etkilemektedir. Bu çalışmada, söz konusu ülkelerin politikaları, stratejileri ve refah sistemlerini karşılaştırılacaktır. Bu çalışma, “İnsan haklarını ve milletin sağlığını en çok ne tür bir yönetim korur?” Sorusuna cevap vermektedir. Ayrıca bu çalışma, sosyal demokrasilerin, sosyalistlerin ve liberal sistemlerin covid 19 krizine karşı nasıl farklı bir tavır sergilediğini ve minimumun nasıl sağlandığını görmeye çalışmaktadır. sağlık hizmetlerine erişim? Çin, Almanya ve ABD'de sağlık hizmetlerine erişimin karşılaştırılması için küresel sağlık güvenliği endeksi kullanılacaktır. Bu çalışma, refah politikalarını, sağlık sistemi ve sağlık hizmetleri politikalarını ve bunlara erişimi karşılaştırmaktadır. Global sağlık güvenliği indeksi aracılığıyla sağlık hizmetleri bu çalışmada uygulanmaktadır.
Keywords
Abstract
Germany, China and US have different administrative and welfare systems. They have implemented different policies regarding their welfare systems. Pandemics like covid 19 have caused transformation in many areas. These transformations have affected policies, state obligations, Governments area of responsibility and interference in domains like access to health care. In this study, policies, strategies and welfare system of mentioned countries will be compared. This study answers the question of “What kind of administration protects human rights and health of nation at most?”, Moreover, this study attempts to see how social democracies, socialists and liberal systems have had different attitude towards covid 19 crisis and how provided minimum access to health care? Global health security index will be used for comparison of access to health care in China , Germany, and US. This study compares welfare policies, health system and health care policies, and access to health care by means of Global health security index is implemented in this study.
Keywords
- Anghie, Antony, (2004), “Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law”, S. J. Quinney School of Law, University of Utah, Cambridge University Press, 1-381.
- Cui W., (2008), “China’s village doctors take great strides”, Bull World Health Org ; 86: 914– 15.
- Jean-François & Akandji-Kombe, (January 2007), “”Positive Obligations Under The European Convention On Human Rights”, Human Rights Handbooks, Directorate General Of Human Rights Council of Europe Strasbourg Cedex, Printed in Belgium, 1-72.
- Kao-Ping Chua, (2006), “Overview Of The U.S. Health Care System”, Amsa Jack Rutledge Fellow, February 10,1-6.
- Lutz, Leisering, (2000), “The Welfare State In Postwar Germany – Institutions, Politics And Social Change, [Shortened Version Forthcoming As “Germany – Reform From Within”. In: Pete Alcock Und Gary Craig (Eds.), International Social Policy: Welfare Regimes In The Developed World, London: Palgrave, 1-41.
- Martin Gulliford, Myfanwy Morgan, David Hughes, Roger Beech, Jose Figeroa-Munoz, Barry Gibson, Meryl Hudson, Chitra Arumugam, Patricia Connell, Abdu Mohiddin, James Sedgwick, (26 February 2001), Report of a Scoping Exercise for the National Coordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D (NCCSDO), 1143.
- Martin Seeleib-Kaiser,(2013),“Welfare Systems in Europe and the USA: Conservative Germany Converging towards the US Model?”, Barnett Papers In Social Research, University Of Oxford Barnett House, Working Paper 13-06, 1-25.
- Mok, Bong-ho and Liu, Jitong, (1999),"In the Service of Market Socialism: The Quest for a Welfare Model in China”, The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 26 : Iss. 3 , Article 9, 1-15.
- OECD, (2011), OECD Health At a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris, Organization For Economic Co-operation And Development.
- OECD (2013b), Health At a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. Paris, Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development, http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-ataglance-2013.pdf, accessed 17 may 2014).
- Patrick Hassenteufel & Bruno Palier, (December 2007), “Towards Neo-Bismarckian Health Care States? Comparing Health Insurance Reforms In Bismarckian Welfare Systems,Social Policy & Administration”, Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Vol.41, No.6, 574-596.
- Petring, Alexander, (2012), “Welfare State And Social Democracy, Social Democracy Reader”, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung German Edition: Political Academy, Bonn,1-160.
- Sabine Klotz, Heiner Bielefeldt, Martina Schmidhuber, Andreas Frewer (Eds.), (2017), “Healthcare As a Human Rights Issue, Healthcare As a Human Rights Issue Normative Profile”, Conflicts And Implementation,Volume 4, The Deutsche National Bibliothek, 1-427.
- Xi Li, Jiapeng Lu, Shuang Hu, KK Cheng, Jan De Maeseneer, Qingyue Meng, Elias Mossialos, Dong Roman Xu, Winnie Yip, Hongzhao Zhang, Harlan M Krumholz†, Lixin Jiang†, Shengshou Hu, (2017), The primary health-care system in China, Lancet 2017; 390: 2584–94.
- Yang G, Wang Y, Zeng Y, et al. (2013), “Rapid health transition in China”, 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010; 381: 1987–2015.
