The recent “Newborn Gang” incident, which has shaken the Turkish public, has brought the issues of closing private hospitals and criticism of healthcare privatization to the forefront. Opponents of privatization argue that such a crucial and sensitive area as healthcare should not be left to market conditions, claiming that the profit motive leads private hospitals to endanger people’s health. Using the Newborn Gang as an example, they are calling for the nationalization of private hospitals. However, the severity of the incident complicates conducting a healthy debate, and seeking solutions in the direction of closing private hospitals reflects a highly problematic approach.Shortly before the discussion about closing private hospitals, access to the social media application Discord was blocked. The restriction on Discord was justified as a measure against malicious users, yet many who benefit from the application were adversely affected. In Turkey, issues are often “resolved” by focusing on negatives and imposing punishments on everyone involved. The call for the closure or nationalization of private hospitals is yet another example of this approach. Thanks to private hospitals, many people are able to spend less time dealing with health issues and can access services more promptly when needed. Treatments in these hospitals are often more personalized, service quality is higher, and patients have the option to choose their doctors. With the use of the latest technologies, more accurate and faster solutions are provided for many illnesses. All these factors lead people to prefer private hospitals, even if it means paying higher fees. While private hospitals are in such high demand, the fact that public hospitals are not preferred sends strong signals about the challenges in public healthcare services.One of the main factors underlying the advantages of private hospitals listed above is the profit motive (to a large extent). Just as pharmaceutical companies develop drugs for many treatments driven by profit rather than prioritizing societal benefit, here, too, the profit motive contributes to public benefit. However, when the pursuit of profit turns into “profit greed,” as in the case of the Newborn Gang, it can lead to highly risky situations, while the profit motive makes private hospitals beneficial; once this desire reaches the level of greed, it can endanger lives. This clearly shows that profit-driven motives must be regulated and controlLed. I believe the most challenging part of solving this problem lies in the issue of regulation.Private healthcare institutions are not unregulated. However, it is evident that these inspections are largely superficial. Since the regulatory bodies do not conduct inspections with an approach aimed at preventing the worst manifestations of profit greed, expecting meaningful outcomes from these inspections becomes pointless. Thus, a systemic issue is apparent here. The regulator and the regulated act are in alignment with mutual interests. Solving this problem is challenging without addressing the issue within the system itself. The problem cannot be entirely resolved, as there will always be a certain level of issues stemming from asymmetric information and the discretion of doctors. A comprehensive systemic solution cannot be achieved without ending the partnership between the government and private healthcare institutions. Once this partnership is dissolved, the problems created by private hospitals could be mitigated.One of these partial solutions is strengthening public and private oversight. With the rapidly increasing but properly modeled use of artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector, it becomes quite easy to detect many abnormal situations. For instance, an unusual rise in the number of infants in intensive care could be identified easily with artificial intelligence—or even without it. In addition, making hospitals more transparent and reporting on treatment quality would help those experiencing health issues make more informed choices when selecting private hospitals and doctors.To counter the trend of hospitals forming chains and moving away from competition, steps that support and encourage competition could help distribute risk, achieve fair pricing, and improve service quality. However, all these measures could only contribute to resolving the issue in an environment where there is no mutual interest collaboration between the government and private hospitals. The current situation is one where private hospitals appear to be regulated but, in reality, are not, with resources being channeled into them as much as possible. This appearance of regulation significantly hinders people from making informed choices and confronts us with the worst form of privatization. The outcome suggests that even liberals should view privatization with a more critical eye. * Dr. Caner Gerek<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;"> 1 Venedik Komisyonu, “Türk Ceza Kanununun 216, 299, 301 ve 314 Maddelerine İlişkin Görüş” 11-12 Mart 2016, İngilizce metne şuradan erişilebilir: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2016)002-e#2İfade ve Basın Özgürlüğü, İnsan Hakları Savunucuları ve Sivil Topluma ilişkin son Memorandum için bkz: https://rm.coe.int/memorandum-on-freedom-of-expression-and-of-the-media-human-rights-defe/1680aebf3d3Ömür Çağdaş Ersoy/Türkiye, no. 19165/19, 15.06.20214 Işıkırık/Türkiye, no. 41226/09, 14.11.20175 İmret/Türkiye (No. 2), no. 57316/10, 10.07.20186 Vedat Şorli/Türkiye, no. 42048/19, 19.10.2021&nbsp;7 Altuğ Taner Akçam/Türkiye, no. 27520/07, 25.10.20118 Selahattin Demirtaş/Türkiye (No. 2), [BD], no. 14305/17, 22.12.20209 Yüksek/Türkiye, no. 4/18, 22.10.2024, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-23743010https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/bati-basta-olmak-uzere-cok-sayida-ulkede-etki-ajanligiyla-mucadele-yasal-zemine-sahip/323499111 https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2024)013-e12https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2024)013-e

The Freedom Observer

The current situation is one where private hospitals appear to be regulated but, in reality, are not, with resources being channeled into them as much as possible. This appearance of regulation significantly hinders people from making informed choices and confronts us with the worst form of privatization. The outcome suggests that even liberals should view privatization with a more critical eye.

Private Hospitals and "Profit Motive"

<a fr-original-style="" href="https://apos.to/a/6253e337aad632000655db61" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">Abdullah Esin</a>After the 2001 economic crisis, the AK Party came to power with 34% of the vote in the general elections and became the sole implementer of the stand-by agreement with the IMF to exit the crisis. The structural reforms stipulated by the IMF can be summarized as the reduction of state subsidies, the privatization of State Economic Enterprises (SOEs), the strengthening of the economy's supervisory and regulatory institutions, and the suppression of workers' wages.These policies would partially reduce the welfare level of the citizens. But they were seen as reforms that had to be implemented at the time as a prescription for a way out of the economic crisis. So in a conjuncture, when union activities were suppressed, wage labor was systematically prepared, and income levels of the working class were reduced, how was the AK Party able to consistently increase its vote share in a period? It's a question frequently discussed and answered from various angles in political science literature. One of the most satisfactory answers to this question is "neoliberal populism."Neoliberal populism consists of two pillars. One pillar is neoliberal policies suppress trade union activities, systematically reduce the purchasing power of the lower and middle classes, reduce the state's role in the economy through privatization, and leave the lower and middle classes at the mercy of private market dynamics.The other pillar of the system, populism, allows the government to provide a certain level of welfare to its citizens through social benefits and non-direct subsidies. According to TurkStat data, social expenditures (considering the impact of social assistance during the pandemic) reached 600 billion liras in 2020.Classes negatively affected by neoliberal policies can be satisfied in the short term with populist policies. In other words, populism facilitates the implementation of neoliberal policies by reducing social resistance against the government. Neoliberal populism has given the AK Party government both a mechanism to create rent for capital owners close to it and a chance to make a voter dependent on it through social assistance.In a 2018 survey conducted by KONDA, the segments that the AK Party received the most votes are housewives with 37%, shopkeepers with 27%, retired people, farmers, and workers with 14%. We can see that the social segments that have suffered the most economically from neoliberal policies also constitute the AK Party's strongest voter group.

privatization ile ilgili hikayeler