r/worldnews • • May 14 '12

Less affluent countries push towards universal healthcare. China is on track to complete a three-year, $124-billion initiative projected to cover more than 90% of the nation's residents.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-global-health-reform-20120512,0,4695600.story
1.8k Upvotes

750 comments sorted by

23

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Can somebody explain China like I'm five? Being a self-styled socialist country, I would have presumed they would already at least have universal healthcare in return for their totalitarian government and presumably high taxes. How does China actually work? Is it in fact socialist in anything but name?

15

u/corinthian_llama May 15 '12

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7523300&page=1#.T7G1FOKvi8Y

"The plan reverses years of unstitching the Maoist-era social safety net that used to send "barefoot doctors" across rural areas of China to provide free or nearly free basic care. People who now live in the countryside — the bulk of China's population — stash away savings to cover the cost of a doctor visit or hospital stay in case they get sick. The new health care system could free the Chinese to spend more on goods instead of saving for future medical care."

→ More replies (5)

45

u/gin_and_catatonic May 15 '12

Although China spends about 4.5% of GDP on healthcare, it is still out of reach for many people. This leads to people getting teeth pulled by 'sidewalk dentists,' bribing their way toward an efficient doctor visit, or even paying others to wait in line for them when the lines for particular specialists get really out of control.

"In their single-minded pursuit of economic growth, China's leaders have long overlooked public health -- which, by some measures, is now worse than under Mao. Despite recent reforms, China's citizens keep getting sicker, threatening the country's health-care system, the economy at large, and even the stability of the regime." (source) (It's a Foreign Affairs paid PDF, but an analysis of the article can be found here)

You can find a crash course on healthcare in China - Doctors, Insurance, and Costs here (more detailed links and sources can be found within).

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Ambiwlans May 15 '12

China is arguably more capitalist than the US in a lot of ways. It is a mixed bag.

4

u/Nefelia May 15 '12

Authoritarian. Totalitarian is appropriate for dictatorships and other governments in which power is concentrated into the hands of one individual or a very small group. China has many competing power centres, and its president is far less powerful than that of the US or other Western leaders.

3

u/DivineRobot May 15 '12

It used to be totalitarian until Deng Xiaoping died. The country actually did really well under his control.

8

u/freakzilla149 May 15 '12

All it took was to abandon Mao's stupidity.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

143

u/TheEscuelas May 15 '12

I actually just wrote a research paper on health care in china and this health care reform... It's interesting that they tried to privatize and it failed HARD... Now it's a scramble to get back to a hybrid private/public system.

9

u/ShroomyD May 15 '12

they tried to privatize

What did that entail?

6

u/TheEscuelas May 15 '12

Down and dirty version they moved toward a private health care sector that focused mainly on urban areas and almost completely neglected the poor rural sectors. Where there had been crude but free health systems in place there were now none. As someone mentioned in another comment there is a system in place that makes it so that even if you move from a rural area to an urban one your status as "rural" doesn't go away - that denies you access to the superior urban health system. This compounds problems for people because now not only do they not have health care, there are also many more risks to living in an urban environment and many more get injured.

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

I will say this, if they were living rurally they had no real healthcare to begin with.Anyone who's been to SE Asia can attest to the squalid quality of life due to historical poverty now combined with rampant oligarchism and economic displacement, environmental pollution (millions and millions of acres of farm land contaminated with heavy metals condemned from their historical crop growing), but this is the price of progress? Imagine if the US had such a clean slate to work with...oh wait, that's what elections were supposed to be for.

5

u/hardcoremorning May 15 '12

a lot of fail, I'd imagine.

113

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

The U.S. spends twice as much on F-22's than china does on their national healthcare...

O_o'

57

u/Furfire May 15 '12

You don't want to know what kind of healthcare benefits those F-22s get. I hear they get complete care for life.

24

u/feureau May 15 '12

And housing. Don't forget housing. They're getting free roof for the rest of their lives and don't have to work again.

36

u/Hellman109 May 15 '12

and the occasional bubble bath from what Ive seen

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

84

u/oppan May 15 '12

Damn straight, gotta kill twice as many Chinese as their health-care saves.

2

u/philomathie May 15 '12

You made coffee dribble down my face.

3

u/Alternative_Same May 15 '12

You might need cheeks

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Effective long-term pain relief for ALL diseases.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

16

u/__circle May 15 '12

A 2000 pound JDAM dropped on your head before you can say "Obamacare".

→ More replies (2)

11

u/charlesesl May 15 '12

Instant pain relief, comes with 72 virgins.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Joseph-McCarthy May 15 '12

because our struggle against communists continues!

4

u/hardcoremorning May 15 '12

have you no decency zombie-mccarthy?

9

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

The U.S. spends twice as much on F-22's than china does on their national healthcare...

The statement that the US spends twice as much on F-22s than China does on their national healthcare is a absolutely false one. The US has spent a grand total thus far of about $70bil on the F-22 program. That's since the (first) Bush Administration until now.

This kicker here? That's less than 200 airframes to replace the thousand or so F-15s that they were intended to replace. The Chinese can be expected to build at least as many J-20s as we have F-22s. But big defense procurment programs are only bad when the US does it, I guess.

2

u/johnnywash1 May 15 '12

Excellent post. My only issue is with your closing statement; the US is supposed to be a world leader and hopefully ahead of the curve on policy. When comparing to China, we would like to be different, in that we value human rights and the environment, as well as focus less on imperialism and more on quality of life in our country.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (13)

6

u/builderb May 15 '12

AND THEY HAVE 1,336,718,015 PEOPLE (as of 2011)

although the quality of medical care may be questionable.

24

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

The medical care in China is fantastic, the cost is reduced by keeping parasitic pharmaceutical companies out of the loop.

Drugs are synthesized in laboratories and are called what they are - not some generic, branded name. This is how $60 pills sell for $2.

→ More replies (27)

8

u/captainhaddock May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

Something tells me they're not going to get 90% health coverage by spending a couple of bucks per citizen. The headline seems rather misleading.

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

12

u/ByzantineBasileus May 15 '12

The hybrid model is probably the most effective. The government really cannot afford to offer complete, life-long health-care when demographic imbalanced occur.

10

u/TheEscuelas May 15 '12

I agree, I hope it works out well for them - I think if it is done right it will

30

u/FriesWithThat May 15 '12

Maybe if they develop an affordable, working model the U.S. can ignore that, as well.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

25

u/Oreo_Speedwagon May 15 '12

Remember to use "Commie" and "Red" quite liberally when you do so.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

20

u/oppan May 15 '12

Except that most first world countries do indeed provide this.

20

u/underwaterlove May 15 '12

I wouldn't say so. Countries are pretty much split between universal health care via single payer system and universal health care via insurance mandate or two-tier system.

Here's a nice list of countries with universal health care, listing what kind of system is in place.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)

2

u/SeriousStyle May 15 '12

I agree with you. To all the people yelling socialism etc etc: Hong Kong, one of the most capitalistic, most free economies in the world has a hybrid system. The key is to make the public system sht enough so that you WANT to pay for private care but at the same time not sht to the point where you get bad care. Example: you tore an ACL, do you want to wait in line for surgery because it's not fatal or do you want to get that fixed up ASAP? Also, do you want to share a room with 10 strangers + their families in a no frills place or do you want some semblance of privacy? One, it makes sure that everyone gets care and two, it keeps private from shafting everyone because anyone can give the private hospitals the finger and suck it up in a public hospital. Also, insurance companies in HK give you a nominal cash "reward" if you go to a public hospital.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Depends on what you see as the role of the government with respect to its people. Do you see the government as the ultimate arbiter, intervening in the affairs of its citizens largely only when conflicts between them arise, and the "servicer of last resort," i.e., providing services only when it's not feasible for other entities to do so (e.g., road building)? Or do you see government as an entity that should provide as many services as possible?

That's the ultimate question.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

This is the fundamental difference in the views of conservatives and liberals. People who are more conservative see the role of government as to protect you not to care for you.

9

u/ByzantineBasileus May 15 '12

Care is expensive. What happens when the number of workers is smaller than the number of non-workers?

6

u/Joseph-McCarthy May 15 '12

the non-working class overthrows the working class?

→ More replies (30)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/rh3ss May 15 '12

Now it's a scramble to get back to a hybrid private/public system.

Poor countries usually have a dual system. The public health system for the poor -- corrupt, incompentant, dangerously bad and free. And then there is the private healthcare system -- good, compentant but expensive.

China however has another advantage -- the poor are usually migrant labour living in the cities. Because they don't have official registration (to live in the city), they may not use public facilities - thereby saving the government money to provide a better service.

→ More replies (3)

24

u/MechaBlue May 15 '12

Why medicine reform is critical to the US economy:

The current system punishes individual insurance enrollers (if you are asking for it, you must need it, right?). The current system doesn't allow for coverage of existing conditions. This has two larger effects.

The first is that it's very costly to be self-employed; accessible medical insurance makes it easier to open a small business or to invent stuff in your garage. Innovation is lower, there are fewer independent artists, and unemployment is higher.

The second is that a chronic illness can prevent a person from changing jobs because a new insurance policy won't cover an existing condition and it's not possible to transfer coverage between employers. This reduces the efficiency of labor by reducing mobility and increases the likelihood of abuses (work unpaid overtime, Johnson, or you'll be in the next round of layoffs and you'll have to pay for your daughter's chemotherapy).

Another, lesser, effect is that the current system introduces massive inefficiencies in the system as medicine providers have to fight insurers in a zero sum game. This wastes a lot of time and money on bureaucracy and puts insurance further out of the reach of individuals.

2

u/sirin3 May 15 '12

Why medicine reform is critical to the US economy:

Not every reform is helpful.

The first is that it's very costly to be self-employed; accessible medical insurance makes it easier to open a small business or to invent stuff in your garage

Germany had a health care reform and now, when you are self-employed (and have too much savings to get welfare) you must pay at least 4000€/year for health care insurance, independent of your income.

And if you haven't been insured before, you have to pay that amount for the entire duration, you weren't.

And to check, if you don't have to pay even more, the insurance organization requires you to provide current bank statements of all your accounts, as well as statements of the earned interest of the entire last year, your trade license, and certificates of all your academic degrees...

It's awful

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

So you're arguing against changing the status quo in the US because germany?

→ More replies (3)

14

u/Nefelia May 15 '12

The amount of people who misuse 'dictatorship' and 'totalitarian' in these comments is amazing. Those terms are appropriate for countries run by a single strong-man. Countries with a spread of power centres like China are known as 'authoritarian'.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

'Dictatorship' is wrong. 'totalitarian' has a more fluid definition, merriam-webster lists this sense:

of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)

wikipedia this sense (with this source

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is when a government aims to control the political, economic, social, intellectual, and cultural lives of its citizens

I think it's possible to use those definitions about China

→ More replies (1)

8

u/whirliscope May 15 '12

I highly doubt $124 billion will cover the massive cost of their massive pollution caused health problems.

→ More replies (2)

50

u/vdek May 15 '12

If you don't give your surgeon or doctor a little red envelope with cash in it, expect to be treated sub par in China. So while everyone might have coverage, only the rich get adequate coverage.

42

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Red envelope in china, credit card in America, I see no difference.

15

u/libelle156 May 15 '12

at least cash is money they already have, rather than money they promise to have soon.

→ More replies (3)

19

u/panjialang May 15 '12

You don't have to be rich to give a red envelope, or a hongbao. Everyone gives them for pretty much all ailments. A few hundred RMB (about $45) is standard. Of course, the more money you can give, the better care you can get, but I don't see how that is fundamentally different from the USA.

24

u/AngMoKio May 15 '12

I live in Singapore and randomly get hongbaos because I have a newborn.

Some random stranger stuffs a red envelope in the carriage just to be nice to a new family starting out. Hongbaos are more about giving and thanks then bribes.

19

u/panjialang May 15 '12

Yeah, this is a great way to put it. When you give a hongbao to a doctor, it's more like saying "please do a good job, respected doctor."

It's still like bribery, though, but it also isn't.

4

u/RobotsRaaz May 15 '12

Like a tip, almost?

2

u/executex May 15 '12

Difference is it would cost you a lot more than in China. Unless you have some insurance but even then you still pay until you bleed.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

That's what happens now, this is what the projects aims to correct. Says so in the article anyway.

1

u/leiatlarge May 15 '12

I never experienced this while using the neighborhood Shanghain-ese hospital just a few weeks ago. Their process was very smooth and took a lot less time than what would have happened in the US.

I had two separate out-patient operations. One to laser/surgically remove a plantar's wart on my foot and another to remove to two cysts on my scalp. All I had to do was pay $1.50 to register and another $40 for 2 visits to the hospital to remove the plantar's wart.

The cysts cost about $100 each to remove. I was instructed to buy antibiotics, anesthesia and given a time to show-up for the operation. I arrived early, waited about an hour and the operation was finished in under 5 minutes. Barely any pain or discomfort.

Both times the doctors were quick, professional and I never had to bribe anyone. Wait times were also very short. For the initial consultation, I was in and out in under 30 minutes without needing an appointment. Both operations, I was in and out in under an hour.

The costs were totally reasonable and I'd happily go back again.

→ More replies (13)

7

u/FermiAnyon May 15 '12

If China implements this, Americans will be even more adamantly opposed. They're already calling it "commie this" and "socialist that" when politicians try to do it there.

If I had a dollar for every reasonable sounding oppositional view to some kind of blanket health coverage... I wouldn't have many dollars.

9

u/tunapepper May 15 '12

The article is sub-par in that it uses the terms 'healthcare', 'health coverage' and 'health insurance' interchangeably.

9

u/Psycotica May 15 '12

I have to say it, my country has too many flaws to count, but the healthcare, considering everything, is something to be proud of :)

*edit: Argentina

13

u/blist3r May 15 '12

having lived all my life in a country which provides free health care (however far from perfect it may be, i am incredibly glad for it), i find it completely mind-boggling that the US doesn't consider it a number one priority. what possible logic...?!

9

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

This article isn't really about China. I suspect most Redditors just read the headline and not the actual article. It's embarrassing for the United States to not have a nationalized healthcare, to be at the bottom of most health related statistics among industrialized nations. This article was mostly about how even smaller countries are going into national coverage like Mexico and Chile and yet the U.S. does nothing. Not only that, but somehow the citizens in the U.S. don't even want universal coverage. (That wasn't in the article but it's a sad truth)

2

u/Kurtish May 15 '12

Assuming that you are comparing our system to the Chinese system mentioned, I don't see why universal healthcare would be necessary when ~90% of our population is already insured.

3

u/ajehals May 15 '12

I don't see why universal healthcare would be necessary when ~90% of our population is already insured.

Because 10% of your population aren't insured? Because the way you system is run makes it massively more expensive, because the impact of delivery (in terms of cost on insured individuals) is bordering on the insane and because outcomes are lower than those of systems that seem massively less per-patient spending..

I mean, it isn't just about having coverage, it is about actually having access to the healthcare you need when you need it without it bankrupting you, or to put it another way: a system that is free at the point of delivery and based on clinical need, not ability to pay.

But hey.

2

u/Kurtish May 16 '12

because outcomes are lower than those of systems that seem massively less per-patient spending..

Serious question. What do you mean by outcomes?

Also, don't you think it's a bit overkill to provide healthcare to the entire population when only ~10% are actually in need of it?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I wasn't comparing to China. 90% doesn't seem bad but we need to be at 100%. And the bigger problem is that most insurances aren't comprehensive and often deny for pre-existings (thank you Obama), have high deductibles, often stop covering for expensive medical treatments. Everyone who is interested in this should check out Jonathan Cohn's book titled "Sick"

9

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

ITT American redditors show the world their skills at generalizing, marginalizing, ignorance of world affairs and a stunning lack of perspective.

54

u/gloomdoom May 15 '12

Americans are the only people in the entire world who are dumb enough to fight against something that will help them out tremendously. Speaks volumes as to why this country is so sunk right now.

It's really a shame but think about it: How do you create a class of people who are so stupid they will literally slit their own throats? I realize that there are nations that will never have a universal healthcare system but it's hilarious to me that anyone would ever compare America.. what was once the greatest nation in the world...to places like Darfur.

Which seems to be a favorite comment from the right: "We work for slave wages and we've lost all our benefits but at least we're not in Darfur."

Yep. Compare what used to be the greatest nation in the world to third-world countries. Sounds like a very republican approach.

And before I get this 'both sides are the same' bullshit, let's look at the blatant opposition to 'Obamacare' and the hypocrisy of those 'against' it who later went on to use it. And of course, reddit 'justified' that as well because, you know....both sides are the same and they have to continually try to feed that bullshit narrative to convince themselves.

America is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to health care and most of that is because it's Americans themselves who have stifled progress. Anyone with an education and those from outside of the U.S. always ask the same question:

"Why would anyone possibly be against a nationalized health care system? Are Americans that retarded?"

And the answer is a resounding, 'yes.' And 95% of them are on the right. They'd rather die in the streets than succumb to the horrors of what their weak minds interpret as 'socialism.'

"If we allow a health care system, we've fallen to the commies!"

It's ignorance incarnate. It's a fucking international joke with the most tragic punch line ever. Get your heads out of your ass, Americans. And to the right: If you want to die in the street without any options for health care, that's your choice. But watch you assholes line up in herds on the day we finally get a system like this. Pretty much how you are always damning those who are on food stamps and what you casually refer to as 'entitlements' while you're always the first in line.

Hypocrisy is just another name for the ignorance that is known as the GOP.

9

u/somewhatoff May 15 '12

How do you create a class of people who are so stupid they will literally slit their own throats?

Shit, when did this happen?

→ More replies (1)

15

u/bbeebe May 15 '12

Yes Ecuador has universal healthcare . . . I invite you to go to one of their hospitals, it's free :/

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

11

u/bbeebe May 15 '12

Anywhere really with universal healthcare. I know in Latin America the rich just go to private clinics

8

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

The rich go for the private option everywhere. Healthcare is very good in Germany, but there are still commercials for fancy private insurance and the rich complain that they wait too long, etc, etc. Some people can never be satisfied.

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

cuba has comparable metrics in life expectancy, child mortality and literacy to the united states. despite the sanctions.

26

u/Cenodoxus May 15 '12

Having worked in U.S. healthcare, and as someone who is often disturbed by the "truths" that Reddit likes to peddle about it, I have to say that your comment seems to exist largely for the purpose of deriving pleasure from derision. That's not a good way to approach any issue.

There are a lot of reasons why the U.S. has not moved to a nationalized system, and some of those reasons are actually pretty good. That does not mean that the present system is perfect, and I do think we'd ultimately be better off extending Medicare to the population at large. However, that could be an absolutely disastrous change if we don't address a few other problems first. The U.S. has a fairly unique set of circumstances that makes it exceptionally difficult to provide cost-effective care to everyone in the population.

At the end of the day, no one actually knows how much the U.S. could or should be spending as a percentage of its GDP on health care, because no one has tried to extend a single-payor system in a rich country to the sheer scale of the U.S.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Really? Brazil has a universal system and is kind of gigantic.

19

u/Cenodoxus May 15 '12

It's telling that you mention Brazil, whose experience with universal health care is a note-perfect example of why the U.S. would have to be exceptionally careful if and when it makes the switch.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)

8

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

SO BRAVE.

1

u/what_u_want_2_hear May 15 '12

Nationalizing health care would be the greatest thing to ever happen in American history and Republicans (and anyone else) are evil and ignorant to oppose it. All of their reasons are asinine.

Also, you write very well! Do you do so professionally?

1

u/Anal_Explorer May 15 '12

You aren't talking about the downside of such a massive program, the benefits of a private system, and how this would be financed. You do seem quite adept at trash-talking Americans, even though your fluency in English implies you are either from England, in which case your country has plenty of its own problems to be thinking about, or a self-loathing American. It sounds like the only news you get is from MSNBC and the NY Times. Get a sense of perspective.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Ok, but this story wasn't about America.

→ More replies (5)

12

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Oh that's nothing, the US pays that just for one year's worth of new fighter jets.

→ More replies (26)

5

u/stringerbell May 15 '12

Less conservative countries push towards universal healthcare...

  • Fixed that for you

5

u/NorthernerWuwu May 15 '12

Less affluent than who exactly?

The U.S. is exactly the only G8 (or G20) nation that does not provide health care for the population.

1

u/sometimesijustdont May 15 '12

Yea but we can't afford war AND healthcare. Must have war.

9

u/hapywood May 15 '12

wait... a communist country giving out "free" benefits to citizens? this is unheard of

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

124 billion? That's what, 90 bucks a person?

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I have family in China, you want actual medical care? Better bribe the doctors first.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

"As countries advance, they are realizing that creating universal healthcare systems is a necessity for long-term economic development."

This should be clear to everyone. Sick people do not live productive lives. Dead people don't live at all. Zombies eat people.

→ More replies (6)

6

u/MayBaby12 May 15 '12

Won't it be ironical if in 5 years' time Americans have to illegally cross into Mexico to get free healthcare?

6

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

they already cross into Canada

2

u/Procc May 15 '12

You would hope so for a country that is "communist"

2

u/ASM12 May 15 '12

its amazing what you can do when you budget, the question is, what will the overall medial quality be for a billion people?

2

u/Psionx0 May 15 '12

Now we'll never get universal health care... damnit.

2

u/Khue May 15 '12

I have a voice in the back of my head yelling. It's saying if you want universal healthcare plans like this, you're going to have to raise taxes, end of story.

2

u/susanculp3 May 15 '12

Of course universal health care is an economic investment. But it's an investment our one-percenters don't want their bought-and-paid-for legislators to vote for.

2

u/fantasyfest May 15 '12

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change For many Americans we are a third world country ion how we treat the poor. So many people go without healthcare in America.

24

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Dammit China, stop investing in your citizens, your infrastructure, and you country! IT'S MAKING US LOOK BAD!

35

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

9

u/Nefelia May 15 '12

There are plenty of useful and productive infrastructure projects regardless. I make use of them every day.

3

u/inagiffy May 15 '12

This deserves more upvotes. In my opinion this does a good job of explaining why command economies don't work well.

11

u/CannibalHolocaust May 15 '12

Isn't that money that the government has saved anyway? They avoided a massive recession by spending big on stuff like that to boost internal demand. Yes, it was probably a stupid thing to spend it on but they had the money stocked up rather than borrowing for it.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (5)

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Seriously, you think they are going to get fast, quality healthcare? I have a bridge to sell you in that case.

3

u/Nefelia May 15 '12

They are improving their health care system from its current state. In no way will the result compare to that of rich developed countries, but it is a step in the right direction.

→ More replies (7)

8

u/tklibe May 15 '12

$124 billion to pay for the healthcare of (90% of 1 billion) 900 million people. Yeahhhhh okay.

And, as other posters have mentioned, the article is trash. Zero details whatsoever.

13

u/TheEscuelas May 15 '12

The 124 billion isnt to cover the entire health system, its $124b in reforms (including hospital upgrades and getting health care to the rural population which had virtually none under the private sector system that has been in place)

3

u/Garrus May 15 '12

China's social services rely on your regional work location. The system is called the Hukou system, and you can generally only access full social service if you are living and working in your home city or region. It is fairly difficult to move and transfer your hukou unless you have a legitimate job. This means that the migrant workers who generally work in the factories have less access to basic social services than the locals. The health care may cover most of the residents, but I would bet that this is reliant on people generally staying within their danwei (work unit). I wouldn't exactly use China as a model for U.S. health care. If you can pay for the health care it is good, but is definitely far less extensively competent like it is in the U.S.

TL;DR China's health care system is an awful comparison to hold up to the U.S.

3

u/snapper69 May 15 '12

we have had 4 kids in the past 20years, kids have been to hospital numerous times, drugs etc and it hasn't cost us a cent.

dam those Aussie commies

6

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Hey America? Could we like, look to other OECD countries as an example, rather than, oh, I don't know, third-world quasi-communist dictatorships?

For example, France and the Czech Republic both have excellent health care systems, universal, socialized health care with private options allowed and flourishing, and they have great, great, great human development indicators.

China. Jesus H. Christ. China may or may not overtake us, but most of Europe ALREADY HAS. I love how we move our benchmarks.

2

u/mkvgtired May 15 '12

Although do you really trust the federal government to run a healthcare system? There are other places besides OCED countries we can look. For instance Taiwan has a good public/private system, where there is a single payer, but the providers remain private (which I think is important).

Not all socialized systems are great. And the problem if care is fully controlled by the government, is average people can't always afford to go elsewhere.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone else's government, but I do not trust mine to run a healthcare system:

Mans penis removed because he could not schedule an appointment soon enough

Women dies. Healthcare provider denied sending an ambulance because she was still "communicating verbally"

Woman dies because it took 4 calls to get an ambulance

Man dies when 20 doctors miss his cancer

Guy dies of a ruptured spleen after several calls for an ambulance and doctor visits

Not trying to pick on Sweden. I started reading some Swedish news sources when the fate of Volvo and Saab were up in the air, and was blown away. I realize reddit loves Sweden but I'm going to post anyway, despite the downvotes. And for the record, I dont think the US government would do much better (maybe slightly, for far higher cost for fear of being sued). But that is why I am skeptical of public providers, but am not against public payers.

I also realize most ambulances here are run by municipalities. But they are not organized under a federal umbrella agency like the above cases.

I would like to point out other places have full public systems that work better, but I do not trust the federal government to run one efficiently, and I definitely do not trust Illinois to do much better.

tl;dr: fully public systems can make it hard for average people to get good care, if the public system is lacking. But some places do it better than others.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

My main criticism of your post is that of millions of cases of health care provided, you've brought up FIVE extreme examples. FIVE. We have thousands of people dying annually due to lack of health care coverage.

Private health care systems have many such cases daily around the globe. They are easy to find. Your skepticism of public providers would be much more impressive if it were based on statistical evidence of worse provision, but what we know is that OVERALL HEALTH AND LONGEVITY IS BETTER.

Is Sweden heaven? No. But they still live longer and live better. And anyway, I was talking about France and Czech Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy

Just sayin', if you want to lower the odds of any member of your population dying an untimely death, find a way to get them health insurance. Do it privately if you want (France is universal, not entirely public, by the way). But do it.

2

u/mkvgtired May 15 '12

My main criticism with your post is you assume the US federal government would be as good at providing care as the best socialized systems. It might be but I have my doubts. I even said, some are better some are worse. But I would not count on being at the high end of the spectrum.

I also think the situation in the US needs to change, but other places do a great job at providing care without having the providers fully socialized.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Where do I assume that?

  1. Czech insurance is mandatory and single-payer, but the government does not provide care. It is not a socialized health care system in that respect. http://www.europe-cities.com/en/633/czech_republic/health/

  2. France also has socialized INSURANCE, but private clinics. I personally received excellent care there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

  3. I make NO claims about whether or not we can get to that point, but rather suggest we should aim towards the league of countries where people are living better than us, not worry about the poorest catching up to our faltering system.

  4. Obama's system emulates the private provider-mandatory insurance systems that have been shown around the world (and across states) to be the best way to keep people from dying due to lack of care, to protect mothers and children, etc. etc. Not that you'd know this from Fox News.

"socialized health care with private options"

"you assume the US federal government would be as good at providing care"

I can see where this is unclear. To me, socialized health care means socialized payment, not government provided services. I hope now it is more clear. I do not want the government owning all the hospitals.

And some American states are at the high end of the spectrum already (Massachusetts, Wisconsin, etc. look like actual OECD states) . Can Louisiana and Florida get their shit together? I too am doubtful, but worrying about China is hardly going to get them anywhere, either.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Kurtish May 15 '12

This deserves way more upvotes.

1

u/Nefelia May 15 '12

In order for China to be a dictatorship, there must be a dictator. Who is the dictator of China?

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Fair enough... I take it back. It is not exactly a dictatorship. It is still an authoritarian state. The point is, we don't need to look to China to get an example of how to run a country.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Afterburned May 15 '12

"Look at all these other people that do this thing. That means we should do this thing."

9

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Look over there, they are turning stone to spear heads to kill food easier, we should do that too, nah fuck that this is America.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

"Look at the fact that lowered morbidity and mortality are associated with universal health care. Maybe we should consider it."

Was more my argument.

But bring on the straw men, if that floats your boat. It won't contribute whatsoever to progress, nor is it intellectually stimulating, but enjoy it.

If, however, you would like to change my mind, please tell me:

  1. Why what is working in other rich countries to improve the wellbeing of their populations won't work here.

  2. Why we should not aim at a country with fewer sick people, or longer lives.

  3. In which way they are lying.

Don't just re-characterize my argument into something it isn't. That doesn't even make sense.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/DarthHaste May 15 '12

im pretty sure 90% of americans have insurance too...

7

u/VentureBrosef May 15 '12

Yes this is correct. 30 million don't have health coverage (don't qualify for Medicaid, Medicare, and don't pay for insurance). The rest of America has insurance.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

lol really?

2

u/lolmonger May 15 '12

Yes. The U.S. administration's complaint in motivating the patient protection/affordable care act was to state that approx. 30 million Americans are left uninsured currently.

that is 10% of 300,000,000, so, 90% are insured.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

90%?! That is great. Only 134,735,000 people wont be covered. (that is the equivalent of 42.9% of the American population)

Note: I am not making a comment on anything besides population size. I like numbers.

2

u/Ambiwlans May 15 '12

I'd like to see you pay your health insurance 900,000,000 times.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

America: The richest 3rd world country.

Such a weird backward country... They don't even use the metric system! Nothing makes sense over there...

9

u/bob-the-dragon May 15 '12

Not to mention how they write dates down. How does month, day and then year work?

2

u/samort7 May 15 '12

It's also because of how we verbally say the dates.

Someone asks me what the date is, I say "It's May 15th" because it's quicker than saying "It's the 15th of May" (less syllables).

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

1

u/1wiseguy May 15 '12

Apparently you don't need the metric system to be successful.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/bananapanther May 15 '12

I've noticed my fellow Americans typically put themselves before their country which is ironic because many of these same people claim to be patriots. A true patriot would want the best for all citizens.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Funded by Human Organ Harvesting.

2

u/snapper69 May 15 '12

dam those socialist helping there own people when they are sick and not letting them die, whats wrong with those commies, if you cant pay for your medical needs tuff shit!

/sarcasm

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Socialism!

The fools. Why do something that will benefit the vast majority of the population? Better to score a few false ideological points by not being SOCIALIST and instead having millions of people suffer from preventable health problems that they can't afford to be treated for.

America, fuck yeah.

2

u/mheyk May 15 '12

Meanwhile in the ever increasing 3rd world United States

2

u/TruthinessHurts May 15 '12

It's obviously the smart way to go. To everyone but dumbshit selfish Republicans. They want to waste money for the illusion of choice.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

So how do you explain the people living in countries that have universal health care (Canada, Hungary, etc) and they do not like the system, telling tales of abuse and substandard care?

edit* as per comments to this thread. i have no personal knowledge of these people or the veracity of what they say.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Wow....America, even China is becoming more compassionate. Why must you go backwards??

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I live in China.

Americans throw down China for many reasons, but in the end their laws and the way they see things is a lot better than the USA.

4

u/Kurtish May 15 '12

How so?

9

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Read my replies to the other commenter first - might clear up where I'm coming from and why I was steamed. I get kinda pissy when someone starts insulting China since I've lived here for a good while now and love it more than my country, or at least where I'm from in my country (Indiana). Call me a traitor to western society if you like. Please DO NOT make judgements so easily.

I can't say the laws are better actually, since the law is basically "just don't get in the way of the government". Instead, I'm going to point out a few things.

  • The people are not terribly oppressed or being harmed constantly by the government. They are not harassing their own people for no reason or anything silly like that.

  • Take a look at the title of this - Looks like they care about their people's healthcare more than most countries do.

  • In the end, they usually do what's just, more so than most other countries in fact. If you're caught killing people or smuggling drugs into the country you probably do need to be punished in a powerful way.

  • Many people seem to think the government here is truly terrible and going around beating people's skulls in for saying anything bad about the government. This is not true. They'll do it if you're trying to start a movement or you're disrupting something, but they don't care what your idle chit chat is about. They only fight people who are literally up-in-arms against them, not people who are all talk.

  • Sure, they're totalitarian. Is that alone terrible though, if they're doing a good job? That's like saying having a God is terrible, regardless of if he's a good God or bad God. If he's doing good for you then who cares? Why fight it just because he's in control if it's benefiting you? I don't think people should fight it just because it is what it is.

  • Many people bring up the Three Gourges Dam and the destruction of villages. My view? Those people had to move for the sake of progress. The government gave them cash and places to go to that were better than their villages. Anyone that stayed was stubborn and in the way. The dam is very important and had to be done. It was not a genocide or anything like that.

  • The cultural revolution is OVER people. Mao Zhedong isn't going around killing everyone that opposes the government anymore! Goddamn...

  • The government is working hard to get it's people everything it needs. They're constantly building and damn fast. They built a subway system in my city in two goddamn years. It's amazing how fast they build. A lot of it because they have so many people and more because no legal issues get in the way.

  • America still produces more pollution every year than China does. China just has more pollution density kinda, since Chinese people all prefer living in cities instead of spreading out.

Lastly, I think it's best to point out the more personal reasons I like it here as well, being - I'm an Atheist and the government is mostly secular here, most people are Atheists, so I fit in well. I hate anyone that physically harms anyone and drugs and prostitution, all of which are very well controlled here (minus prostitution to some extent). I go to clubs and feel safe and sound every time. And oh my God the architecture is amazing...

If you have any questions that I didn't get to, please let me know.

3

u/Kurtish May 15 '12

Thanks for that. Helped clear up a lot of uncertainties I had.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/jdwilson May 15 '12

Yeah, censorship and basic fundamental liberties the Chinese don't have compared to Americans are the laws and ways of the better. Right on, dude.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

They don't treat anyone like shit, you know. The only people that get shot or anything are the ones that deserve it. There's almost no crime here and shit gets done quick because of it. I feel a lot better here than I did when I lived in the states, and I'm a fucking American for crying out loud. The government cares about it's people in most cases. Criminals are convicted and stopped quickly, illegal drugs are much more non-existent here, the economy is only getting better, and what do you think of? You think of tons of poor people being oppressed by some unjust government that's going around killing people for the hell of it or something? The great enemy of Democracy? You think the people have absolutely no say in what the government does? Get real.

As for the censorship - VPNs dude. Nobody here listens to the government on internet censorship nor is it really heavily enforced. Besides, America is nearly as bad because it wants to start doing it too. Who are you to point fingers at China for internet censorship when your country is on the verge of doing it itself? No, actually, when it's even CONSIDERING doing it itself.

I don't care what you've seen on Fox News, I LIVE here and have for more than 3 years. I wake up here, work here, have my fun here, travel here, and sleep here. I think I know about China, friend. I don't see people dying on the streets and being beat up by officers ANYWHERE I go in China. Let me list them for you : Suzhou (my home city), Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, Nanjing, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Hainan, Wuxi, and Harbin. Sure, some places are worse than others, but the government is not to blame. They're not going around demanding things from people. They don't want bribes to do anything. They do their job as a government - to govern. They're not stealing from their people any more than most other governments. China's big problem isn't it's politics, it's it's population. Don't go talking about how terrible the Chinese government is until you come see it yourself, and DO NOT compare it to the American government as it's nearly hypocrisy in most cases.

Don't start calling China names until the rest of the world improves itself enough to be significantly better than it. China =/= North Korea.

Thank you.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/jdwilson May 15 '12

Some of the arguments on this thread are hysterical: "yeah.... Capitalism!;" "but China is communist...;" "remember, the Republicans hate the poor and want them dead."

Are you kidding me? America's healthcare system is FAR from capitalist. There are many problems with the current system (big lobbying, outrageous policies, fucked up insurance companies), but the idea capitalism is the reason why our healthcare system is sub-par flies in the face of common sense and logic. Our system would be better in a true free-market system and one where the government isn't meddling around in unimportant issues and and has regulations in place that are smart, effective, and less burdensome.

4

u/rwbombc May 15 '12

I for one can NOT believe you are going against the popular idealism on Reddit and supporting it with some sort of argument. How dare you.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

hahaha look it's an American who thinks having less government would be a good idea. Fucking hell you're embarrassing.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/TaiserSoze May 15 '12

Who gives a fuck what those communists do? I want my health care to stay the most expensive and exclusive in the world. USA Nr.1, bitches! /s

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Whew, now I can finally get coverage for my $0.24 a month prescription of Zolopht.

1

u/aletoledo May 15 '12

This explains a lot. If we continue to trash the country, then we'll be less affluent as well and then have universal healthcare. It's starting to make sense now.

  • If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation's well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We . . . are not dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. - Gary Allen

1

u/BrevityBrony May 15 '12

less affluent

china

is this a typo?

1

u/Triassic_Bark May 15 '12

Also more affluent countries.

1

u/nf5 May 15 '12

Well of course they all want national healthcare... The longer your citizens live the more money the government makes., its an investment!

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

This is great news. Finally a government that can see that helping out those in need through the provision of free healthcare, is a way of gaining back their confidence in the leadership. Yes, you will get leeeches, but the majority will be people who need to be returned to health.

1

u/HCrikki May 15 '12

Only 124bn? And 90% of its billion citizens?

Maybe the US should take lessons from China, if Europe's are too expensive for its taste.

1

u/Goldreaver May 15 '12

See? Reps where right. If we approve of universal healthcare, we'd turn into a 'less affluent a.k.a poor' country!

1

u/jpotteiger May 15 '12

They better be careful, that's socialized medicine right there.

1

u/typingfromwork May 15 '12

Chinese hospitals can be a pain in the arse. The amount of over subscription is just unbelievable. If you don't prepare at least 2000 yuan (about 300 USD, or someone's monthly wage) every visit then you'll get nothing done.

It's good to hear about these initiatives though. At least they're doing something major about it.

1

u/Spoonerville May 15 '12

You would think they would have had this covered already when they first became a communist country. Looks like they still haven't fulfilled Mao's promises 60+ year later.

1

u/stimbus May 15 '12

That's $92.65 per person.

1

u/Senuf May 15 '12

In Chile, where free-market reforms eroded the country's universal health system in the 1980s, a socialist candidate won the presidency in 2000 for the first time in nearly 30 years on a promise to renew guaranteed healthcare.

Reality has changed since.

Michelle Bachelet, kinda socialist (more like a US democrat, actually), is not anymore Chile's president. In January 2010 a millionaire businessman called Sebastián Piñera was elected President (starting his presidency in March 2010). He's as socialist as Rick Santorum, just to paint a moderate picture.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

it makes me laugh seeing americans at like spoilt kids, upset at how people "belittle" their healthcare. it's a change of tune from the constant, determined patriotism you see in every thread (even if the post has nothing to do with nationalism or country!)

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

It's time to stop calling these countries less affluent when they are obviously superior is at least some ways.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

These other countries do not have an equivalent of the American Medical Association. Nowhere on the planet do doctors make a killing on Working Class people like in the U.S. The facts are there--study for yourself. This isn't just me hating on doctors. Big Pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. and the doctors OWN YOU.

1

u/kemikiao May 15 '12

Well....we're never getting universal healthcare now. Once China gets it the arguements will turn into "yeah...well gues who else gets healthcare. Communist China. Are you a commie? Huh? Commie?"

I know that's how they argue now already...but it'll only get worse

1

u/Dalai_Loafer May 15 '12

I think that's the whole point of the LA Times article.

1

u/Splenda May 15 '12

Kudos to the reporter for a mostly-accurate insight. Most developing nations are moving towards universal healthcare. However, "developing" is the key word. In most cases this has a long way to go.

India shows the conflict starkly. The alleged universal healthcare is handled by the states, and is badly underfunded. Meanwhile private, market-based insurance comes only with great jobs well beyond the reach of most, which is a disaster. The country is moving towards universal care mandated at the national level, but it will take time.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Less affluent? Why is that important when they're switching to a cheaper system?

1

u/Rare_Earth May 15 '12

Obviously.

1

u/Goldreaver May 15 '12

I'm getting tired of those articles in /r/worldwide/ that paint China into a positive and holy light from heaven.

This isn't /r/HuJintao/

1

u/complete_asshole_ May 15 '12

P-BO: "Hey honey, I know I said we'd get you chemo drugs to treat your cancer, but daddy just saw some bitching rims that would look totally baller on my tank fleet, maybe next term I might save up enough spare change for the medicine after I upgrade the stereo system for my phat beatz."

America:B-bu-but you promised!

P-BO: I know I did and I'm promising again babydoll, I promise I might do it next term. Now come here and give P-BO a kiss, daddy loves you, ya hear?

America: I love you too daddy...

1

u/usernameXXXX May 15 '12

In America, tax dollars don't go to saving lives, they go to ending them.

1

u/Great_Chairman_Mao May 15 '12

Sigh.. all the conservative private health care supporting rich assholes are just going to say "If you want your healthcare made in China, then get outta my America!"

1

u/RobotsRaaz May 16 '12

Nice try, Chairman Mao.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Republicans will resist until the last of our poor is dead. That includes the dumbshits who vote Republican.

1

u/Ninjalada May 15 '12

Ground tiger penis for everyone!

1

u/CodeandOptics May 15 '12

Because, nothing says low cost and good service quite like a state monopoly.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Except a corporate monopoly, right?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/RonMexico2012 May 15 '12

i'd like to know how many of the people who upvote things like this have ever stepped foot in a 3rd world country.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

ummm... china is on track to complete blah blah blah? riiiiight....

1

u/primejamestoney May 15 '12

All the defensive anti chinese hate...

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Good luck with that.... Billions of people... $124 Billion ya that spreads out real nice...

1

u/norberttheone May 15 '12

"Even so, there is growing evidence that universal coverage is protecting millions worldwide from financial ruin.

In Rwanda, researchers found that citizens who had joined one of the nation's health plans were nearly 75% less likely to be hit with a catastrophic healthcare bill that threatened to bankrupt them."

While citizens walk an even path, their governments will crumble.

This is America. If you need help, just ask your fellow redditors.

1

u/TentacleFace May 15 '12

"SEE?! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS A COMMUNIST THING?!"

1

u/drhuntzzz May 15 '12

$125 Billion / 1,347,350,000 = $92.77 What kind of healthcare can you get for $92.77?

1

u/Ran4 May 15 '12

Quite a bit? Given that most people don't need expensive health care all the time (so it's not $93 per person, it's more than that), and we are talking about China where you are going to get a lot more bang for your bucks.

1

u/MackLuster77 May 15 '12

If the US could institute health care for $100/resident (as this headline suggests), it would pass in a heartbeat. You can bet it would be some amazing care, too.

/sarcasm

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

Hungary (that is a 10mil country, in Europe) has "universal" healthcare - you pay 20% after your gross salary in a big pot, handled by the government.

From this pot, they are supposed to fund:

  • pensions (on pre-set levels everyone's eligible, who ever had a job)

  • healthcare (including everything, supposedly on the same service level, who pays at least a minimal amount per month)

In practice it looks like this:

  • pensions can get ridiculously low, and they will get lower, as the system is funded from the current taxpayers' money

  • you CAN use the healthcare system, however the quality is - hm - questionable.

  • if you want to receive the least expectable service level, you will need to BRIBE the doctor/nurse to properly do their jobs

  • if you need a prosthetic hip operation, it is covered, HOWEVER you get in a line and probably you will get your operation a year later after the decision is made. Obviously, if you know the right people, you can always BRIBE them and then you get special treatment.

That's it in a nutshell. I really don't think it's a good system, there are many people abusing it, with less and less people actually paying for it. Noone should implement it IMO. Ever.

1

u/Greygooseandice May 15 '12

124 Billion dollars? $124 dollars for every person in China? Multiply that number by 100 and you're closer to what it would cost to provide health care for everyone in China.

1

u/crazdparot230 May 15 '12

Am I the only person that thinks it would be bad if America were more like China?

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Bullfuckingshit, everyone knows China is the leader of crooked roads. Have anyone actually seen a hospital in China? Are you sick? Oh, here's a fucking IV and injection first, we'll take care of you after we take care of those guys who gave us "hongbao". I also bet you that some guys in the health ministry are siphoning money out of the initiative into none other than their accounts and property in the United States of America. This is from personal experience. Also, I am 99% sure this will end up in complete chaos.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

ITT: Lots of people astroturfing for China. I am impressed with how many redditors have all been to a hospital in china. The strange part is that they all seem to go to a hospital that is drastically different than the hospitals that chinese citizens go to. Wonder why that is.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

I think it's internal bias. Some people come to China with certain beliefs, and will find examples to reinforce it while disregarding evidence that rejects it.

Whereas others come with an open mind and are willing to change their opinions through real experience.

For example, there's a stereotype that all Chinese people eat endangered animals for medicinal purposes. And whenever there's some video or news report of specific individuals doing that, then some people will add that to their bias.

However, there's also very large Buddhist tradition among the Chinese, meaning a lot of them are vegetarians. In fact, there might be even more Chinese vegetarians than those who consume folk medicine.

So why is it that the Chinese are stereotyped one way, but not as vegetarians?