For those who haven't seen it, you can watch the video at [1] (link).
While the video is informative and has detailed figures, many of them are not reliable or comprehensive if you check them carefully. For example, the video begins with a discussion of the timing of budgeting and execution, criticizing China for not having a budget for the current year until June, when there is no budget to follow. In fact, the overlap between budget formulation and execution in China is a serious issue that deserves to be discussed [2], but it is not unchecked that budgets are generally formulated before April (2010, 2011), and that they are executed according to the budget for the same period of the previous year [2]. Another example is the video of taxpayers in "many countries" receiving "lists from the tax authorities", which in our experience of paying taxes in the US for several years would have excluded the US if we had not missed important mailings over the years.
There are a lot of similar details, and much of the commentary in the video doesn't hold up to scrutiny. What about the various data clearly represented in charts and graphs?
Statistical Trap Inside the Area Chart
Folks who have watched the video should not be unfamiliar with the chart below (source). The producer of the video chose to use the 1.6 trillion dollars of "central government expenditure" in 2010 to create this image, which is represented by the area of a block. First of all, in fact, the central government's fiscal expenditure in 2010 should be 4.833 trillion[3], including transfer payments to local governments, tax rebates to local governments, etc., in addition to the central government's own expenditure of about 1.6 trillion. What the video is referring to should be central-level spending[4].
For the area chart above, it is normal to consider that the area of each piece should be basically proportional to the corresponding figure, to show the relationship between the size of the different categories of figures, and the general reader will subconsciously think this way when they see the chart. For example, the upper left of the green "general public **** service", the lower left of the red "armed police", the center of the red "public **** security" and the right red "Defense", the area of these four blocks is not too much difference, normal thinking would think that these four represent the financial expenditure figures are similar. For example, the areas of "Science and Technology", "Transportation" and "Vehicle Purchase Tax Expenditures" in the upper-right corner are also similar in size, so are the figures represented by them also similar? If we look at the chart that way, then we've been fooled.
Taking a closer look at these figures [3,4] inside the budget and final accounts, we can see that there are cases of underspending and overspending. We can fill in the numbers represented by each piece inside the corresponding squares in the chart above, so let's take a look:
Inside this, each small square is given a number in the upper-left corner according to the order of categorization inside [3], and the number below the text is the value of its corresponding central-level expenditure (in billions). Among them, "General Public **** Services" (1) and "Public **** Security" (4) are similar in size and number, which seems reasonable. However, the corresponding figure for "national defense" (3) is 5,176.35, which is about six times the size of either of these two, and it is a typical statistical trap to use the same area, regardless of whether or not it was intended by MinnMedia (see "Seeing Through Statistical Traps in a Second" [5])! What's even more surprising is that almost the same area of "armed police" is actually a separate item in "public security", and if you separate this item out, you're left with less than 18 billion dollars in "public security". That leaves less than 18 billion dollars. Is this meant to inculcate a point by giving the audience a hint? Or is this the way to express the principle of "no subjective views, facts speak louder than words, let conscience speak"?
And the three items of "Science and Technology", "Transportation" and "Vehicle Purchase Tax Expenditures" in the upper-right corner, which were mentioned earlier, are similar in size and number, which is consistent with the intuitive impression. This is consistent with the intuitive impression. However, "Expenditure on Vehicle Purchase Tax" is actually the most important item in "Transportation". A similar problem is that "foreign aid" is singled out as a separate item from "foreign affairs" (2). In fact, there are only 23 items of central-level expenditure, and in addition to the 22 items in this chart, "armed police", "vehicle purchase tax expenditure" and "foreign aid" are also taken out from their respective classifications, and then "foreign aid" is listed as a separate item. In addition to the 22 items, the chart also takes "Armed Police", "Vehicle Purchase Tax Expenditure", and "Foreign Aid" out of their respective categories, and counts them once more to make 25 items (the remaining item in the 23 items is the "Reserve" [3,4], which has a zero expenditure).
$160 billion to achieve free health care?
In the video, it is mentioned that in 2004, the nation's "three public expenditures" (public food and drink, public transportation and public overseas travel) were estimated to be as high as 1.2 trillion dollars. Although the "three public expenditures" are not always unreasonable, their abuse has been criticized in recent years. Unfortunately, due to the concealment of government departments at all levels and the complexity of their statistics, no accurate and credible figures have been released. For the 2004 figure, some people estimate that there are 900 billion, there is also news that the Ministry of Finance Budget Department of the relevant person in charge, according to the "2004 Annual Accounts of Administrative Institutions," the relevant subjects of the data measured as 120.1 billion yuan [6], 1,200 billion of the statement, should be 2010 only appeared, and is not an accurate figure. However, the accuracy of this data let's put aside.
Then the video compares this "three public expenditures" figure to the $160 billion needed for free healthcare for all, a figure worth talking about. We don't care whether free health care for all will lead to a waste of medical resources, or whether people want free health care, and we don't want to check the specific statistics first, let's calculate, in China to realize the free health care, this number is enough?
This total amount of money needs to include the salaries and benefits of all health workers, the construction and maintenance of hospital buildings, utility expenses, the cost of purchasing, maintaining and using medical equipment, and the large amount of medicines and medical equipment consumed each year.
In 2009, there were about 7.78 million health workers in China, including about 5.535 million health technicians, and about 1.05 million rural doctors and sanitation workers, as well as some management, labor and other personnel. There are also a number of management, labor and other personnel [7], who need to eat and live, and therefore have to spend accordingly. Due to the continuous development of the medical profession, our current health personnel certainly exceeds this number, and still based on this calculation no one should say it is outrageous. Counting the salary and three or five insurance policies, if the national average is 2,000 per person per month, I guess the doctors will beat me up in groups. However, at that figure, it would be 186.72 billion RMB per year. Look, the 160 billion said in the video is not even enough to cover salaries. Why don't we prescribe half of the doctors and nurses, so that 90 billion or so would be enough to pay salaries, and then have some money left over to give everyone some cold medicine for diarrhea, and the occasional hangnail, at 50 bucks per person per year, which should be enough, right? You should know that this number is much higher than India