Continuing on topic of cleaning the "business environment", prior to our successful pregnancy we had one miscarriage, and for the cleanup operation we were listed 3 or 4 different prices in same maternity hospital.
The difference came from the technique used, which varies in price and safety. The cheaper ones arguably have heightened risk for further complications which may reduce chance of future pregnancy. Most expensive ones probably medically unnecessary in most cases.
I would expect the government to focus on these details (and put money if necessary), so that hospitals could offer the safer options to everyone, and stop offering things that aren't medically justified.
Another experience on softer side of medicine, relating to bed side manners that are not high on priority in China.
After the procedure we were put to a room to wait and observe that everything is OK. In the adjacent bed there was a girl surrounded by a bunch of female friends.
After we left, my wife told me that she overheard the group speaking with language that made her convinced that these women were working in the oldest profession, which only so many years ago was still quite openly practiced here.
The experience rang a bell in my head, because I had just recently read an article (from another country) describing medical professionals to be wary of not placing patients with unwanted miscarriages in same rooms with people who want to get rid of their babies.
Few years ago we had a foreign visitor staying with us. She was wondering why all over the place, from TV to buses, there are advertisements for maternity clinics (read: abortion clinics), but nothing to advertise contraceptives.
The government may well restrict advertising of abortion clinics, and start revoking business licenses from clinics that may appear profiting from abortions. That it can call "cleaning the business environment", without directly banning anything from the general public.
Well there are lot of places where it is considered religious, anti-so at least. Perhaps also in this area China could do well to utilize religion as a vehicle for the desired effect. Study tour to Texas for example.
Our own Chenggong district was listed as ghost town once. I don't think that it qualifies as such anymore.
In many cities with ghost developments, the improvement has been orchestrated by moving better schools and other middle-class attractions to them, which families with money have followed.
I bet the continuation of this story runs tangential to recent education and child raising reforms, not just financial foes of developers.
On the note of wasted finance, good sign here is that safety of people was put before financial gains.
If the information is to be believed, the development was paused for so long that the foundation work for the houses was damaged - although I bet that some flaws in the original work contributed to putting it on hold in the first place.
In "old China" the construction would have probably went on anyway, and people could have ended up dying or losing their apartments due to unreported damages.
One less thing to cover up in coming years, by transparently blowing up the whole thing.
@alienew: "it is precisely money that the poor do not have."
And that is why even 1% taxation of the little they have would have big impact on their awareness of their rights and privileges. In context of OP, it would tell them that they pay for even the limited resources they get, and it would be in their best interest to actually use them.
For example in mountains in Changning, Baoshan, the local government subsidizes roomy tents to families who live in dangerous mudbrick houses or need more space for children but are not financially capable to build bigger and better houses.
But there is psychological barrier to accept such "gifts".
Some go to great lengths to find, borrow and steal the money rather that accept services for free. Some rather leave their children behind and go earn the money themselves from coast. Some rather die quietly in their homes than early enough access even the limited medical services that they are entitled to.
I have personally witnessed all of that within last year.
The state is going to increase financial reach to rural regions in coming years, and as Vicar hinted, trusting the reach-out to public service providers will only go half way. The poor themselves must be activated to ask and accept those services.
I fail to see what exactly you guys disagree with - is it the fact that providing to the poor will be away from your own middle class, or do you have a better idea how to make the poor raise up, or do you not think that they should be let to do it at all?
@tigertiger: "many assumptions and additional requirements (story tellers etc)"
Well the storyteller reference was for a method which I think will not work, and why incentives such as taxation is more effective.
"If we cannot provide the additional resources"
That's exactly the reason why the poor rural residents must learn to ask for better services themselves. The state should cut services from better privileged city dwellers if that's what it takes (by reallocating its own funding and directing private funding through tax incentives) - the resources are there alright, but they are spread unevenly.
This part is actually already reflected in Chinese leaders' most recent public commentary. According to them, Deng said that while wealth is glorious, he never meant the whole country to get wealthy at once. Only few would get rich first, and according to current leaders, it is about time to spread that wealth to the whole nation.
If you simply provide funding to the rural regions, it will accumulate in the hands of those who want it most. That's why the knowledge of availability of such funds and the services they create must be spread to the whole population and not select few individuals.
"Comparing EU farmers, who are business owners who learn to work the system for profit with the rural poor, Is perhaps a case of chalk and cheese"
I don't necessarily agree that they are so different in this view, but even if they are, chalk can learn be better chalk and cheese can learn to be better cheese while both retain their inherently different characteristics.
I am not even claiming that they should use the same methods - that's specifically why Chinese poor must learn through methods that are available to them. They don't have political freedoms, so use money.
@alienew: "Maybe the state doesn't demand taxes from them because they don't want to hear more complaints from them?"
Yes, that's the big question, and I think the only question.
@Dazzer: "poor paying taxes does not mean they will demand better services, just because you a middle class educated person would [...] poor are often ignorant as to h;ow govermwent works"
The only real question in my opinion is, do we (or they) want the poor to learn to ask for better services or not, and do we want the poor to join us in the educated middle class or not.
If we do not, then the discussion is moot.
But if we do (and I obvously think we should), then for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread, using finances and taxation as vehicle for that learning process should make sense in China - but not in many other countries, because they should have better methods at their disposal.
Yes, the imporevished are often ignorant, but the whole idea is to get that slowly changed.
Farmers in Europe used to be quite ignorant too, but then came development and finally EU and now they are buried in paperwork for taxes and subsidies while robots feed and milk the cows.
It will not happen overnight, but it has to start from somewhere.
You can send someone to tell the poor how the government works or how they should proceed to acquire better services, but they know their place and if they think they are OK just the way they are, they won't bother with any of that once this storyteller leaves, and nothing changes.
But if they are told that they will have less money to buy cigarettes or alcohol, not to mention paying their children's education, because state will now collect some of it as taxes, they will learn to ask why the state does that and what do they get in return.
But I repeat that the big question in China is, whether the state wants that or not.
评论
还没有评论
Cookie Preferences
Please select which types of cookies you are willing to accept:
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者@alienew: "it is precisely money that the poor do not have."
And that is why even 1% taxation of the little they have would have big impact on their awareness of their rights and privileges. In context of OP, it would tell them that they pay for even the limited resources they get, and it would be in their best interest to actually use them.
For example in mountains in Changning, Baoshan, the local government subsidizes roomy tents to families who live in dangerous mudbrick houses or need more space for children but are not financially capable to build bigger and better houses.
But there is psychological barrier to accept such "gifts".
Some go to great lengths to find, borrow and steal the money rather that accept services for free. Some rather leave their children behind and go earn the money themselves from coast. Some rather die quietly in their homes than early enough access even the limited medical services that they are entitled to.
I have personally witnessed all of that within last year.
The state is going to increase financial reach to rural regions in coming years, and as Vicar hinted, trusting the reach-out to public service providers will only go half way. The poor themselves must be activated to ask and accept those services.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者I believe that I have checked into more reality in the rural Yunnan than most Kunming expats will in their life time.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者I fail to see what exactly you guys disagree with - is it the fact that providing to the poor will be away from your own middle class, or do you have a better idea how to make the poor raise up, or do you not think that they should be let to do it at all?
What is it...
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者@tigertiger: "many assumptions and additional requirements (story tellers etc)"
Well the storyteller reference was for a method which I think will not work, and why incentives such as taxation is more effective.
"If we cannot provide the additional resources"
That's exactly the reason why the poor rural residents must learn to ask for better services themselves. The state should cut services from better privileged city dwellers if that's what it takes (by reallocating its own funding and directing private funding through tax incentives) - the resources are there alright, but they are spread unevenly.
This part is actually already reflected in Chinese leaders' most recent public commentary. According to them, Deng said that while wealth is glorious, he never meant the whole country to get wealthy at once. Only few would get rich first, and according to current leaders, it is about time to spread that wealth to the whole nation.
If you simply provide funding to the rural regions, it will accumulate in the hands of those who want it most. That's why the knowledge of availability of such funds and the services they create must be spread to the whole population and not select few individuals.
"Comparing EU farmers, who are business owners who learn to work the system for profit with the rural poor, Is perhaps a case of chalk and cheese"
I don't necessarily agree that they are so different in this view, but even if they are, chalk can learn be better chalk and cheese can learn to be better cheese while both retain their inherently different characteristics.
I am not even claiming that they should use the same methods - that's specifically why Chinese poor must learn through methods that are available to them. They don't have political freedoms, so use money.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者@alienew: "Maybe the state doesn't demand taxes from them because they don't want to hear more complaints from them?"
Yes, that's the big question, and I think the only question.
@Dazzer: "poor paying taxes does not mean they will demand better services, just because you a middle class educated person would [...] poor are often ignorant as to h;ow govermwent works"
The only real question in my opinion is, do we (or they) want the poor to learn to ask for better services or not, and do we want the poor to join us in the educated middle class or not.
If we do not, then the discussion is moot.
But if we do (and I obvously think we should), then for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread, using finances and taxation as vehicle for that learning process should make sense in China - but not in many other countries, because they should have better methods at their disposal.
Yes, the imporevished are often ignorant, but the whole idea is to get that slowly changed.
Farmers in Europe used to be quite ignorant too, but then came development and finally EU and now they are buried in paperwork for taxes and subsidies while robots feed and milk the cows.
It will not happen overnight, but it has to start from somewhere.
You can send someone to tell the poor how the government works or how they should proceed to acquire better services, but they know their place and if they think they are OK just the way they are, they won't bother with any of that once this storyteller leaves, and nothing changes.
But if they are told that they will have less money to buy cigarettes or alcohol, not to mention paying their children's education, because state will now collect some of it as taxes, they will learn to ask why the state does that and what do they get in return.
But I repeat that the big question in China is, whether the state wants that or not.