China has a pretty abismal social safety net. They economy has a lot more central organization than most countries (whose economies are more free market). The social safety net systems in Europe are much stronger than in China, even though they have less centrally planned economies overall.
As with everything, it’s hard to fit things into neat groups and the more you analyze something the more nuance there is.
I can only speculate, but I assume it has to do with the government structure. China’s leadership is much more insulated (electorally) from the population than the European leadership. Said another way, European leadership is more accountable to their constituents and social safety nets are popular.
Chinese leadership are more accountable to the party which is just a subset of the population, not the population at large. I assume those in the party are on average better off and have less need for a social safety net, so they are less likely to demand that from the leadership. This is pure speculation though.
Like I said, I’m only guessing. I’ve never taken a political science class or studied this kind of stuff. It’s the best reasoning I can come up with, bust just because it seems reasonable doesn’t make it true.
So what’s their healthcare situation? Does government provide it? or is it only provided through employment like USA does it (implying we’re not worthy of healthcare unless we work a cushy job),? or do they pay for healthcare out of pocket?
I may have gotten some information incorrect, but I believe that the Chinese welfare system is very complex and even sad to think about. Citizens are only entitled to free healthcare in their home province. Outside of that they are not entitled. It’s called the hukou system. Despite the uplifting of millions of Chinese from poverty, the wealth and access to resources is strange in such a way.
Their home province may be rural and not have hospitals equipped to treat certain diseases? China is a big country and not all of it is well developed.
This is the correct answer in a lot of cases and even if their hukou is in a modern place like Shanghai, the best hospitals and latest medical treatments are often not part of the basic medical coverage. Long lines and long waits happen for many services. A two tier system of public and private care exists with the rich able to pay for private doctor, private rooms, and advanced care. I lived in Shanghai for 11 years. Managed to have a heart attack there and got great emergency service at a fraction of the cost in the USA. After care was long lines and long waits at the local hospital so I went to the international clinic for that.
A lot of Chinese are from the more rural interior and travel to the more prosperous cities, which are closer to the coast, to work. Traveling to their home province to get treatment is more arduous than getting sick itself.
sure, but the urban population of china is close to 65%.
so if 100% of the rural population have zero access to water and electricity (which would be fucking insane to assert), then thats 35% of the total population, literally half of the figure op stated in his comment. and this is giving them the biggest benefit of the doubt possible.
all in all, i retain my point of them being a fuckhead.
Both countries regularly exclude and ignore the rural populations.
Or even just watch a documentary, for example when they show shots ,it is very easy to tell most of the rural towns have no electricity, running water, or in most cases front doors/glass windows…
Dumbass liar fuck. Per World Bank data, 100% of Chinese people have access to electricity since 2014, and as of 2020 over 91% have access to running drinking water.
China’s life expectancy in 1962 was of 51 years, and in 2025 it’s 79, just 3 years shorter than Finland. Considering that China’s urban population is just 2/3rds of the country compared to 85% for Finland, I’d say they’re pretty much there comparing the difference in level of development.
I guess increasing life expectancy of 1.5bn people to European levels in 50 years isn’t socialist enough for you?
I thought China was supposed to be socialist?!
Yes. And not 100% of procedures are covered by the nationalized healthcare. These are not incongruent things.
Contrast that to America where not 100% of procedures are covered by personal healthcare, and less if your healthcare coverage is “bad”.
China has a pretty abismal social safety net. They economy has a lot more central organization than most countries (whose economies are more free market). The social safety net systems in Europe are much stronger than in China, even though they have less centrally planned economies overall.
As with everything, it’s hard to fit things into neat groups and the more you analyze something the more nuance there is.
Why exactly? What reasons?
I can only speculate, but I assume it has to do with the government structure. China’s leadership is much more insulated (electorally) from the population than the European leadership. Said another way, European leadership is more accountable to their constituents and social safety nets are popular.
Chinese leadership are more accountable to the party which is just a subset of the population, not the population at large. I assume those in the party are on average better off and have less need for a social safety net, so they are less likely to demand that from the leadership. This is pure speculation though.
Appreciate the perspective
Like I said, I’m only guessing. I’ve never taken a political science class or studied this kind of stuff. It’s the best reasoning I can come up with, bust just because it seems reasonable doesn’t make it true.
In practice, China is more capitalist (at citizen level) than many European countries.
So what’s their healthcare situation? Does government provide it? or is it only provided through employment like USA does it (implying we’re not worthy of healthcare unless we work a cushy job),? or do they pay for healthcare out of pocket?
I may have gotten some information incorrect, but I believe that the Chinese welfare system is very complex and even sad to think about. Citizens are only entitled to free healthcare in their home province. Outside of that they are not entitled. It’s called the hukou system. Despite the uplifting of millions of Chinese from poverty, the wealth and access to resources is strange in such a way.
I think it’s pronounced the “fuk-you” system.
Best comment I’ve read!
So … if you were very sick, why wouldn’t you go back to your home province to get that healthcare?
Stupid system, sure, but it seems like a much more reasonable solution than hoping your child wins a lot of money in sports.
Their home province may be rural and not have hospitals equipped to treat certain diseases? China is a big country and not all of it is well developed.
This is the correct answer in a lot of cases and even if their hukou is in a modern place like Shanghai, the best hospitals and latest medical treatments are often not part of the basic medical coverage. Long lines and long waits happen for many services. A two tier system of public and private care exists with the rich able to pay for private doctor, private rooms, and advanced care. I lived in Shanghai for 11 years. Managed to have a heart attack there and got great emergency service at a fraction of the cost in the USA. After care was long lines and long waits at the local hospital so I went to the international clinic for that.
A lot of Chinese are from the more rural interior and travel to the more prosperous cities, which are closer to the coast, to work. Traveling to their home province to get treatment is more arduous than getting sick itself.
Would it also be fair to assume a rural province might not have the specialist you need?
As somebody mentioned already, you’re right, most specialists live urban areas.
That’s why the “Democratic” part of Social democracy is so critical.
Look up the term State Capitalism. That is China.
Socialist in name only.
I thought they at least had universal healthcare…
For the rich.
China (and India) like 70% of it is poverty stricken pre industrial living. No running water, no electricity, no sewage systems.
They have a free “doctor” who may be hours away and have the training/equipment equivalent of early 1900’s doctors elsewhere.
over 99% of the population have access to water.
over 99% of the population have access to electricity.
shut the fuck up and don’t lie on the internet if you can’t back up your claim fuck head
It says this is in cities only. That seems to neglect rural areas, no?
sure, but the urban population of china is close to 65%.
so if 100% of the rural population have zero access to water and electricity (which would be fucking insane to assert), then thats 35% of the total population, literally half of the figure op stated in his comment. and this is giving them the biggest benefit of the doubt possible.
all in all, i retain my point of them being a fuckhead.
Alright, it’s good to hear some data about their population distribution.
Did you miss the word CITY ???
Learn to read JFC
Both countries regularly exclude and ignore the rural populations.
Or even just watch a documentary, for example when they show shots ,it is very easy to tell most of the rural towns have no electricity, running water, or in most cases front doors/glass windows…
Dumbass liar fuck. Per World Bank data, 100% of Chinese people have access to electricity since 2014, and as of 2020 over 91% have access to running drinking water.
China’s life expectancy in 1962 was of 51 years, and in 2025 it’s 79, just 3 years shorter than Finland. Considering that China’s urban population is just 2/3rds of the country compared to 85% for Finland, I’d say they’re pretty much there comparing the difference in level of development.
I guess increasing life expectancy of 1.5bn people to European levels in 50 years isn’t socialist enough for you?
Notably, in the US it’s only 78.4.