Different Approaches in Promotion of Mobility of Students and Patients in the European Union

KŘEPELKA, Filip. Different Approaches in Promotion of Mobility of Students and Patients in the European Union. In Contradictions Envisioning European Futures - 22nd International Conference of Europeanists, Paris, Section 193: Through the Looking-Glass: Union Citizenship as a Game Changer fo Social Policy in Europe. 2015.

Základní údaje

• Originální název: Different Approaches in Promotion of Mobility of Students and Patients in the European Union
• Název česky: Rozdílné přístupy v podpoře pohybu studentů a pacientů v Evropské unii
• Autoři: KŘEPELKA, Filip.
• Vydání: Contradictions Envisioning European Futures - 22nd International Conference of Europeanists, Paris, Section 193: Through the Looking-Glass: Union Citizenship as a Game Changer fo Social Policy in Europe, 2015.

Další údaje

• Originální jazyk: angličtina
• Typ výsledku: Vyžádané přednášky
• Obor: 50500 5.5 Law
• Stát vydavatele: Francie
• Utajení: není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
• Organizační jednotka: Právnická fakulta
• Klíčová slova česky: Evropská unie; Mobilita; Vzdělání; Zdravotní péče; Soudnictví
• Klíčová slova anglicky: European Union: Mobility; Education; Health care; Judiciary

Anotace

Member states provide social security to their people according to their economy and politics. Contribution of supranational structure is modest. Its economic integration, however, requires intervention. Migrant workers and their families change also their social affiliation. It is uncontroversial. They pay taxes and contributions. It includes healthcare and education as services financed mostly by the government. Intentional cross-border mobility for these services is different. The Court of Justice has promoted mobility of students with equality of nationals of the member states (judgment Gravier). They thus enjoy education at expenses of locals. Mobility of patients promoted with exportability of reimbursements has been based on free movement of services and goods (Kohll and subsequent). The second approach complies with model of economic integration and with separation of welfare systems more than the first one. Widespread resort of patients would boost providers in host country and push their home states into improvements, while unlimited student immigration could exhaust host country and promotes free-riding. Paradoxically, acceptation of the two approaches is opposite. Student immigration is perceived as enrichment. Reimbursement of treatment found abroad was opposed by the member states fearing destabilization of their healthcare. Despite the Directive on Patients’ Rights, poor implementation reveals continuous efforts to curtail its impact. We can hypothesize that different approaches stem from different models of solidarity. Healthcare was always perceived as individual benefit. Education is perceived as public good.

Anotace česky

Konferenční příspěvek zkoumá příčiny a důsledky rozdílného přístupu Evropské unie jako celku a především jejího Soudního dvora vytvářejících mobilitu studentů a mobilitu pacientů.