英文原文
The health systems in Britain and especially Sweden combine elements of the entrepreneurial, organic corporatist, and social democratic models. Sweden best exemplifies the social democratic paradigm. Except for nine years, the Social Democratic Party(SAP)governed Sweden from 1932 through 1997.Yet beginning in the early 1980s the social democratic influence over public policymaking began to wane along with the corporatist framework. Entrepreneurial values and structures gathered greater strength. To an ever greater extent, the entrepreneurial model triumphed in Britain during the late 1970s, when the Conservative Party scored electoral victories over the Labour Party. The governing Tories implemented policies that privatized former state enterprises, deregulated state control over business activities, and relied on market mechanisms to supply social services. Despite this movement toward the entrepreneurial model, in neither Britain nor particularly Sweden have social democratic values disappeared. Assisted by powerful unions, the Labour Party implemented the National Health Service immediately after World War II.
Today the British still rely on a public health system largely financed by tax revenues. Only limited privatization in the health arena has occurred. Rather than operating under extensive price competition, the health care market functions as a ‘quasi-market’ with considerable central government regulation. Compared with Britain, Sweden has a smaller private health sector. Most physicians work as salaried employees for the county governments, which formulate and carry out health policies. Except in the large cities, few private hospitals exist. The state owns retail pharmacies. Private health insurance corporations enroll fewer members as a share of the population than in England. In both nations, particularly Sweden, the public health care system supplies fairly generous, comprehensive, and egalitarian benefits---a reflection of democratic socialist values.
|
