Re: Yunnan introduces health insurance program targeting poor
www.gokunming.com/[...]

The accusations are so outrageously incorrect that I must address it here.

First of all, according to the article, "While all people in Yunnan have basic government-provided medical insurance issued when they turn 18."

So to state "when the state threw out Maoism they threw out...Universal medical coverage", shows either a lack of effort to read the article before commenting or a lack of comprehension skills. There IS already a basic UNIVERSAL medical coverage available. You may disagree with the usefulness of such coverage, but that is far from "they threw out...universal medical coverage.

The simple matter is, as China developed, it's health care needs outgrew the existing system. For a long time, this problem was not being address. However, based on this initiative, it would seem that universal health care is still something the government is striving for.

Second, regarding "the effort made to establish reasonably egalitarian access to health care that was policy before the 'opening up' of China." What do you think this insurance drive is doing? It is encouraging peasants that otherwise do not have access to proper medical care to purchase insurance so that they can have access. Hence, the effort is still there.

Regardless of effort, the comment seems to be implying that the health care received under Mao, before the "opening up" of China, is much better than what the peasants receive today. Such claims are so stupendously incorrect that it is unfathomable it would come from an 'intellectual', book club member. Please become educated on the state of medical care in China pre-1978 before making such grossly inaccurate comments.

Final note, whatever medical resources are available, given that there are 1.4 billion people, how much care would each patient receive if "egalitarian" care was provided? Even if the current quality of medical care can be maintained for all those that seeks it, who would bear the burden of such a cost? Certainly not the state. In the end, it would come from the pockets of the peasants themselves. So, how is this different from the government encouraging the poor to purchase supplemental insurance so that they are covered?

I don't understand the 'nostalgia' for the Mao era when so many lives and cultural heritage were lost and white terror were inflicted on the people. Any unprivileged person that has lived through that painful period would not to wish to relive it. It is very dangerous, and irresponsible, for someone that was privileged enough to live a comfortable life and not be subjected to such terror, to white wash this dark period of Chinese history. Please do not succumb to the propaganda.

if you mean the shoot from the lip comment by the resident alien. well par for the course really innit.

Normally, I try not to get worked up over idiotic remarks but this callous attempt at changing the connotations of certain terms can be allowed to go unchallenged.

Imagine if I say, I guess when they got rid of Nazi-ism in Germany, they also got rid of patriotism. Hey, I was only referring to the nationalism that brought Germany out of the doldrums of WWI, not the sick systematic extermination of a single race. (The comparison is apt because 30 million+ people starved under Mao's policy and he could've cared less, and countless millions disappeared or otherwise incapacitated during the political purges and cultural revolution.)

This is the same anger felt when I hear Chinese students express "admiration" for Hitler because he was strong and powerful.

Mao and Mao's policies was anything but 'egalitarian' so please do not equate the two.

1. there's a lot that BASIC medical care doesn't cover (note current campaign to help 5-6 kids who need heart operations which they can't afford).
2. so now they have to attempt extension of health care, thru purchase.
Health care previous to Opening of China was not overall better than it is today, it was worse; but policy then was to make it more egalitarian, with some success.
Final note: "certainly not the state" - I agree: not anymore.
Not from pockets of the peasants themselves, who can't always afford it - perhaps tax the hell out of new capitalists?
No nostalgia here for the era - I'm just suggesting they might have built on what they'd started, with the increased health resources possible thru the overall rise of China's economy and improvement & spread of higher education, rather than throwing out babies with bathwater & then starting again to attempt to equalize inequalities that have blossomed under Opening & Reform. Policy now said to be creation of a 'harmonious society' - occurs to me that dealing with such inequalities might be an important part of it.
So I hope current policies for health care can do this. Not sure they can or will. Meanwhile, there are some people making some effort to take up the slack - a worthwhile effort, if a small one.

Alien, you are throwing round ideas and concepts as if there were no consequences to them. At the core of your argument is the idea of egalitarianism in terms of health care coverage, but really is an argument for egalitarianism at large. However, let's focus on health care.

What's the point of fondness for egalitarianism if it doesn't provide better coverage? You would rather have a society in which everyone was equally denied health care than one in which a group of "elites" receive superior health care coverage while everyone else gets poor medical care, but still better than the egalitarian model?

"To built on what they've started" only works if what they've had was workable. Health care during the commune era for the peasant was limited to visiting the poorly trained "doctor" at your work unit or village who would tell you everything was fine or prescribe TCM of questionable effectiveness. All the while, those with privilege and connections would be able to visit a real doctor in a real hospital and receive western medical attention. (Even in the pre-'Opening of China' period, health care was NOT egalitarian, it never was unless you believe in the propaganda. If anything, it is more egalitarian today because as long has you have the money, anyone can receive quality care. In the Mao era, even if you had the means, unless you have state permission, you are forbidden access to hospitals.) The inequalities had always been there, to say China is more egalitarian in the past is like saying the US was more democratic in the past. There is no connection between the Maoist (or socialist) era and equality. That is why your original contention is stupendous.

While your rhetoric appears to be against elitism, you are making an argument from the comfort of your privileged lifestyle which smacks of being an elitist. Are you willing to give up your preferential treatment as a foreigner so you can enjoy the "not better but more egalitarian" lifestyle?

In the end, your musing is nothing more than hot wind thoughtlessly passing out of your mouth in which you are now trying to justify. You still have no idea of what an egalitarian society looks like but you are in love with your self for having posed such thoughts. You have admitted egalitarian does not mean better and offered no solution on how to improve current society based on egalitarian principles. All the while, you've reinforced the propaganda that China under Mao was a better than the real improvements enjoyed by the vast citizens after the market reforms.

You are wishing a return to a system in which you know will not apply to you but have real consequences to the average Chinese citizen. You are the epitome of "Let them eat cake".

USA = United States of Amnesia.

While it's true that the Chinese government and people at the time experienced one of the worst famines in Chinese history, ostensibly due to the failed Great Leap program, China was under US (aka UN) trade embargoes AND was still paying off its war debts to the former USSR using badly needed grain.

It's also worth noting that China is the ONLY country in the world that paid off its entire war debt to the USA, unassisted by Taiwan. EVERY other country including German and Japan, were "forgiven" vast portions of their remaining war debts to the USA, EXCEPT China. So the politics involved complicate and bias the image western media and history would have us believe.

A couple of excellent examples of historical bias are the UK and French perspectives on Joan d'Arc and the UK and US perspectives on Benedict Arnold (hero spy or treasonous spy). History is always a matter of perspective.

So, yes - China suffered a major famine - but NOBODY is completely innocent and NOBODY is completely guilty.

Historically, in China, when the people are in such dire straits, revolution is sure and quick to follow, so the fact that the government managed to keep the country unified during those turbulent times was also a testament to its leadership. And we all know the USA and its allies were working overtime to destabilize the PRC using whatever Machiavellian means possible, to advance it's alleged platform of global "democracy".

Some will of course pick and choose the brutality - but this is no more brutal than the US Civil War, the Korean War, or the millennial conflicts currently waging across the middle east and Africa, or China's own incredibly long and bloody and brutal history during the Warring States period.

It's incredibly easy to criticize and tear down, but much more difficult to provide constructive criticism.

On that note, China generally provides basic healthcare for roughly 1.4 billion people. Obamacare failed and Americans also had to PAY for the privilege of "affordable" health care, which became "unaffordable" to both the participating health insurers and arguably, to the participants.

This point is NOT to gloat over the demise of Obamacare - it was a valiant effort, poorly planned, poorly executed, and probably and eventually, poorly shutdown.

Affordable, quality health care is a major pressing social issue for both China, the USA, and many other countries in the world. Current models of socialized health care in Canada and Scandinavia may or may not be realistic for a country of this size.

So how to finance and implement such a complicated and expensive national infrastructure, in a sustainable manner is the core issue. The potential solutions are in front of our eyes, but it will require a major shift in culture and behavior.

On that note - I understand China's 13th Five Year Plan is also focused on the ELIMINATION of poverty by 2020 - a very worthy goal, that should be interesting to see.

Both China, Japan, and the USA's social security (retirement) programs face similar challenges.

So now we know the issues, how should the government fix these critical social problems, in an economically and socially feasible, sustainable and scalable manner?

The people that are supposed to be paying medical care are the same ones that sell you cigarettes, alcohol, oil and all the other chemicals in your food that send you to the doctors in the first place. Even then you are sold medicine the doctor has been 'nicely' encouraged to sell. You'll get heavily taxed on everything then pay for the cure. On a lighter note, it was snowing today, too cold now and I'm getting sick. Chinese medicine takes the same amount of time to work as it does not taking any medicine so I might go for the intravenous drip...you can also count on good old brandy

Wikipedia, "Healthcare Reform in China". Considerable bibliography.

Not sure what your point is, other than to show us you know how to look up things on wikipedia.

@michael2015: "It's also worth noting that China is the ONLY country in the world that paid off its entire war debt to the USA"

I would check this statement. I don't think it is correct. UK paid off their debt in 2006. I could not find where China had paid anything.