None of what I said detracts from China's success in eradicating extreme poverty.
That said, the majority of Chinese households are still significantly less well off than their peers in other upper middle income countries as stats have shown multiple times.
I don't see why anyone would be so virulently opposed to moving some industrial subsidy spend to expanding healthcare, revamping the current insurance system, providing better quality schools to reduce the cost burden lower tier Chinese households have when spending on education, increasing rural retirement pensions, reforming Chinese income taxes to be less regressive, etc.
Raising household disposable incomes by $2000 a year would help increase GDP growth from 4% to 5% (back of the napkin math) - and that too in a sustainable manner. And this is something that is fairly doable by expanding social services and welfare accessibility. This would also solve much of the overproduction problem that has lead to trade wars globally.
> I don't see why anyone would be so virulently opposed to moving some industrial subsidy spend to expanding healthcare...
This is because many media outlets, whether intentionally or unintentionally, promote the 'China collapse theory,' making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from curated information.
Take the FT article you cited earlier as an example. As someone living in China with parents who have chronic illnesses, let me describe what healthcare is actually like here:
My father and grandfather both have diabetes. They use NovoRapid insulin at about 40 RMB(6 USD) per pen, requiring 1-2 pens monthly (totaling 100 RMB, 14 USD). Domestic Chinese brands cost roughly half that price.
My mother and I have hyperlipidemia. Lipitor costs about 70 RMB(10 USD) monthly, while domestic alternatives cost around 10 RMB (2 USD).
China's healthcare system features centralized procurement policies where the government negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies. To have your products included in the insurance formulary and reach more patients, manufacturers must reduce prices.
While this system has some issues (which we could discuss later), nearly all medications—including imported ones—are significantly cheaper in China than in the US.
Two years ago, my grandfather spent his final two weeks in ICU at a cost of 120,000 RMB (16700 USD). Insurance covered 100,000 RMB (14000 USD), leaving us with 20,000 RMB (2700 USD) out-of-pocket.
Regarding insurance coverage:
Rural and urban insurance have different reimbursement rates, but generally cover over 50%.
My parents' retirement income is about 4,000 RMB (560 USD) monthly—relatively high for urban workers. In tier-3/4 cities, most retirees receive over 1,000 RMB
(140 USD)monthly.
Now examining your cited article: Those two farmers never participated in any insurance programs. Having never contributed to:
- Pension funds (hence receiving only the minimum 150 RMB, 20USD monthly—standards vary by city, e.g., ~1,400 RMB,200USD in Shanghai)
- Medical insurance (400 RMB lowest level, 55USD annually, fixed.), making them ineligible for reimbursements. Rural insurance even allows retroactive payments-coverage begins three months after payment, regardless of preexisting conditions.
While such cases exist, they're exceptionally rare. In my entire life, I've only known two families who didn't enroll in insurance—both were wealthy enough to purchase private coverage.
My fathers's dear friend Stese was close with the old brewmaster at Anchor Steam. He was in his 90's at the time and one day he told Stese to start following him around the brewery and watch how he did things so he could take over for him when he was gone. Stese dutifully observed the brewmaster and took over his duties when he died. Soon there was a kid following him around taking notes on a clipboard. Fritz Maytag took over the operation, expanded it, bought a fleet of trucks and gave steam beer in SF a second life.
Jimmy has been debunking the Russiagate conspiracy for years now. He's a comedian turned truth-teller. I stumbled across his show many years ago, and my honest first impression was that this guy looks like a shady used car salesman, so I was very skeptical of his claims. He will go into angry tirades often.
But after seeing enough of his segments, and seeing how things unfold over weeks and months, I realized he's actually legit. Whenever I see news unfold now on mainstream news, for example - the Nordstream pipeline being blown up and Russia being blamed for it, I know I will get a more accurate assessment of the truth from Jimmy Dore. And again, it's not that I take his word for it, I see how things unfold weeks and months later and turns out he was right.
Note: The left smears Dore as a right-winger. That's so bullshit. He's actually progressive and more left than the establishment left - antiwar, wants universal healthcare, pro-union pro-worker, free-speech. Dore was one of the first people to endorse and interview AOC when it looked like she was a legit anti-establishment lefty (that turned out to be wrong). The left doesn't like him because he criticizes them from the real left and reveals their hypocrisy and corruption.
I'm afraid that we're going the wrong direction on this. Purple Sea Urchin's(probably from ship ballast) are decimating the kelp forest on the west coast of US. Same with our terrestrial forests only we are the ones doing the damage there. Sorry to be a downer but I'm thinking we're screwed.
Do you have any examples of a successful technological solution? We've never been here before so there are no examples in either category. It's clear that we need massive changes in behavior to stop dumping CO2 and other more potent greenhouse gases, such as methane, into the atmosphere(stop driving, don't fly, and, I'm sorry, no more babies). At 8 billion and counting, we've outstripped the planet's ability to sustain life(see Holocene Extinction Event[1][2]). It's possible we could augment these behavioral changes with sequestering efforts using technology that hasn't been invented or brought to scale yet. We'll see. I would also suggest that you pressure your political leaders but to date that approach seems to be fruitless. Politicians are all talk and no action, especially when it means pushing back against their petroleum industry donors. So we need to take things into our own hands. If we don't, and keep going down this road, we are headed straight for 4+ degrees of global warming and billions of people dead. As well as most other life on the planet.
[1] https://rebellion.global/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Well, Malthus' dismal predictions of starvation were averted through improvements in agricultural productivity. I would say this is a success of technology.
With respect to failures of politics, I would suggest you look to nuclear proliferation. All political solutions to this have been miserable failures.
The same people who benefit from this relationship need to pass the laws that kill the goose. Maybe you think there are enough honest politicians to pull it off. I've been been around long enough to have been disabused of that notion.
> I've been been around long enough to have been disabused of that notion
Unless you're younger than 20, you've seen a Congress pass such reforms [1]. If you were around in the late 70s, you may also recall the Ethics in Government Act of '78.
Don't be discouraged by posts in this thread. Yes, you can make a difference. I've been driving a biodiesel for 20+ years. I hardly drive these days anyway. As a dev you're in a good position to pull it off. Just stop driving(walking/cycling is good for you and good for the earth), don't fly, and no more babies. Do you really want to bring a child into what's coming down the pike?
I looked into the vegan vs locavore tussle and it seems to me they fought to a standstill. So I still eat meat(I'm low carb for health reasons). I buy from the farmers market and I'm lucky to have access to a local bison farm(carbon negative - look it up).
If anyone is curious, I looked up how bison farms could be considered carbon negative, and it appears to be because of their grazing habits (they produce roughly the same methane as cows, but they don't overgraze, which helps plants grow). Curious to learn if there is actually a net benefit and the amount of land needed per bison for it to be viable, but still interesting.
https://regenerationinternational.org/2017/12/24/bison-lates...
