[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":47},["ShallowReactive",2],{"q-sw-106-1-policy-legislation-037":3},{"subject":4,"subjectSlug":5,"subjectFullName":4,"question":6,"related":23},"社會政策與社會立法","policy-legislation",{"id":7,"webId":8,"year":9,"session":10,"subject":4,"legacy":11,"number":12,"stem":13,"options":14,"answer":19,"answerNote":20,"images":21,"lawTimestamp":9,"explanation":22,"freq":10},"sw-106-1-社會政策與社會立法-037","sw-106-1-policy-legislation-037",106,1,false,37,"我國的二代健保改革，未能完成最初學者規劃的以家戶總所得課徵保費的改革目標，而改以課徵補充保費並保留原來的六大被保險人的保費課徵方式，請問下列何種理論最無法解釋此種社會政策的發展現象？",{"A":15,"B":16,"C":17,"D":18},"菁英主義","漸進主義","利益團體政治","歷史制度論","A",null,[],"本題考點是政策形成理論對二代健保「妥協式改革」的解釋力比較。依菁英主義,政策反映少數統治菁英的偏好並由上而下貫徹;但二代健保中,學者與行政部門規劃的家戶總所得制最終在立法過程被折衝修改,僅加徵補充保費並保留六類被保險人,顯非菁英意志的貫徹,故菁英主義最無法解釋,A 為正解。B 能解釋,漸進主義(Lindblom)主張政策是在現狀基礎上小幅修正,補充保費正是漸進調整;C 能解釋,各利益團體反對家戶總所得制,迫使方案妥協;D 能解釋,歷史制度論的路徑依賴指出既有六類保費制度結構限縮了改革選項。",[24,27,31,35,39,43],{"webId":25,"stem":26,"number":10,"year":9,"session":10},"sw-106-1-policy-legislation-001","志願服務法第 22 條規定：志工依志願服務運用單位之指示進行志願服務時，因故意或過失不法侵害他人權利者，由誰負擔損害賠償責任？",{"webId":28,"stem":29,"number":30,"year":9,"session":10},"sw-106-1-policy-legislation-002","精神衛生法第 41 條規定：嚴重病人傷害他人或自己或有傷害之虞，緊急安置及強制鑑定後，仍有全日住院治療必要，經詢問嚴重病人意見，仍拒絕接受或無法表達時，應向何機關或單位申請許可強制住院？",2,{"webId":32,"stem":33,"number":34,"year":9,"session":10},"sw-106-1-policy-legislation-003","性侵害犯罪防治法第 8 條規定：醫事人員、社工人員、教育人員等，於執行職務時知有疑似性侵害犯罪情事者，應立即向當地直轄市、縣（市）主管機關通報，至遲不得超過幾小時？",3,{"webId":36,"stem":37,"number":38,"year":9,"session":10},"sw-106-1-policy-legislation-004","少年事件處理法第 18 條第 2 項規定：對於少年有監督權人、少年之肄業學校或從事少年保護事業之機構，發現少年有第 3 條第 2 款之虞犯事件者，得請求何機關處理之？",4,{"webId":40,"stem":41,"number":42,"year":9,"session":10},"sw-106-1-policy-legislation-005","家庭暴力防治法第 63 條之 1 規定：被害人年滿幾歲，遭受現有或曾有親密關係之未同居伴侶施以身體或精神上不法侵害之情事者，可準用相關規定申請保護令？",5,{"webId":44,"stem":45,"number":46,"year":9,"session":10},"sw-106-1-policy-legislation-006","依據家庭暴力防治法第 15 條第 1 項：通常保護令之有效期間為幾年以下，自核發時起生效？",6,1784109470576]