Prominent human rights lawyer Yu Kai proposes free medical care for major illnesses after calling for the abolition of the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”
On October 18, 2026, this outlet learned that recently, prominent human rights lawyer Yu Kai of Shandong Xiaolin Law Firm proposed “free medical care for major illnesses,” following his proposal to abolish the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
On October 14, 2026, Yu Kai submitted to the National Healthcare Security Administration a “Proposal on Establishing Free Medical Coverage for Major Illnesses and Gradually Advancing a Free Basic Medical Care System for All.” Yu previously drew widespread attention for jointly submitting a “Legislative Proposal to Abolish the Crime of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble,” and paid for it by being suspended from practicing law for one year. After resuming practice in 2025, he again spoke up for people in mainland China. His commitment to carrying others’ burdens and advancing social progress in the face of risk is admirable.
The core content of his submitted “Proposal on Establishing Free Medical Coverage for Major Illnesses and Gradually Advancing a Free Basic Medical Care System for All” is as follows:
1. Core demands and current shortcomings
The proposal points directly to the fact that under the current medical insurance system, even after basic medical insurance, critical illness insurance, and medical assistance, insured people who develop serious illnesses still have to pay a substantial share of costs out of pocket, creating a risk of “falling into poverty because of illness and falling back into poverty because of illness.” It proposes that the National Healthcare Security Administration begin formulating a “free medical coverage for major illnesses” policy and advance free basic medical care for all in stages.
2. Legal basis and feasibility
Legal framework: The proposal notes that the newly passed Medical Security Law (to take effect in 2027) establishes the openness and evolutionary nature of the medical insurance system, leaving room to upgrade coverage for major illnesses. It also accords with the state’s obligations to provide benefits under the Constitution and the Basic Healthcare and Health Promotion Law.
Coordination mechanism: It proposes the principle of “supplementing, not replacing.” Free coverage for major illnesses would serve as a “third line of defense,” following basic medical insurance and critical illness insurance/large medical expense subsidies, and cover the remaining eligible out-of-pocket expenses.
Funding and beneficiaries: It proposes raising funds through multiple channels, including fiscal investment, transfers from funds, and social donations. At the outset, priority would go to people in extreme hardship, recipients of minimum living allowances, and people enrolled in basic medical insurance who are diagnosed with major illnesses; coverage would be limited to eligible expenses within the medical insurance catalog.
3. System design and strategic roadmap
Operating mechanism: Establish a direct settlement chain of “basic medical insurance → critical illness insurance/large medical expense subsidies → free medical coverage for major illnesses,” so patients do not have to pay upfront or make reimbursement trips, and rely on direct settlement for medical treatment outside their home region to eliminate regional barriers.
Three-stage goals: In the near term, focus on eliminating out-of-pocket costs for people in hardship and patients with major illnesses; in the medium term, expand the range of illnesses (such as cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and rare diseases) and categories of expenses; in the long term, gradually achieve “free medical care for all” on the basis of free public health services and full medical insurance coverage.
This proposal is not only a professional contribution on law and policy, but also a weighty expression of social concern. With the courage to “know that the road ahead is strewn with blades, swords, wind, and snow, yet still choose to advance fearlessly,” lawyer Yu Kai has turned his attention to vulnerable groups and urgent livelihood concerns. He puts his legal ideals into practice through his professional work and calls for warmth in the system through great compassion. This spirit of “carrying burdens for the people” is a precious force for advancing social progress, fairness, and justice. (Source: WeChat public account: Traces of Life)







Source
- Outlet
- 维权信息中心报告
- Original report
- https://wqw2010.blogspot.com/2026/10/blog-post_18.html
- Original publication
- Oct 18, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 18, 2026
Related Reporting
Oct 18, 2026
The Shanghai Citizen Who Took the Constitution Seriously: Feng Zhenghu’s “Procedural War”
Author: Shu Wen. Introduction: A Bench at Narita Airport. In the depths of winter in 2009, several rows of dark blue benches stood neatly arranged along the southern corridor of the south wing of Terminal 1 at Tokyo’s Narita Airport. In this “legal enclave” between the bustling international duty-free area and the immigration inspection counters, cameras from media outlets around the world gathered: the BBC, NHK, CNN, The New York Times, Reuters. At the center of the flashes was a middle-aged man with a calm expression. He wore a T-shirt he had made himself, with the words “Chinese citizen has been refused to return to China eight times” on the front—and on the back: “Chinese Human Right 中国人権, 回国 帰
Oct 17, 2026
Eleven Years Since Publisher Gui Minhai Was Forcibly Disappeared in Thailand; Sentenced to 10 Years
Gui Minhai was forcibly disappeared in Thailand on October 17, 2015, briefly released in 2017, arrested again in 2018, and sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2020. His family has not known his whereabouts or health since January 2018. In January 2025, China declined to disclose his condition or location in response to a UN inquiry. A Swedish-Chinese writer and former Causeway Bay Books figure, Gui is serving his sentence at an undisclosed location in Ningbo.
Oct 17, 2026
Yao Lifa: A retrospective on seeking judicial remedies for the right to directly elect deputies to the People’s Congress
Deputies’ bills and joint proposals Zhou Hongyu (a deputy to the National People’s Congress) explicitly listed “improving the election litigation system” as one of his proposed revisions in a 2008 bill, and stated bluntly that “the absence of an election litigation system is a major flaw in China’s current electoral system.” During the 2008 Two Sessions, several deputies’ bills to revise the Election Law focused on “improving the election litigation system,” arguing that the existing provisions “can no longer meet the needs of social development.” These were proposals that formally entered the legislative agenda at the level of deputies. Systematic academic draft proposals for revising the law and discussions In June 2009, Professor Han Dayuan of Renmin University of China led the completion of the Election Law (Expert Draft Amendments), and a seminar was convened specifically to discuss it, with “resolution of election disputes and election remedies” explicitly on the agenda. This was an institutional design presented as a complete draft proposal for amending the law, not a collection of scattered articles. Before and after deliberation on the 2010 Draft Amendment to the Election Law
Oct 17, 2026
Yao Lifa: A Summary of the Twists and Turns in the Judicial-Remedy Provisions for Village Committee Elections: “Proposed During Drafting—Deleted Before Review—Ultimately Absent”
Key conclusion: The revision of the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees, launched in 2009, included a proposal at the drafting stage to open the door to judicial remedies for rights in village committee elections. A 2008 report noted that the draft revision contained “mainly five” provisions concerning judicial safeguards, under which villagers could sue in court over election violations and election disputes. But before the provisions were formally submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for review, they had been deleted under the legislative approach of “keeping the law broad rather than overly detailed.” In the more than ten years that followed, three avenues—the voter-qualification procedure in civil litigation, administrative litigation, and the crime of disrupting elections under the Criminal Law—were each closed on the grounds that they “do not apply to village committee elections.” The alternative left in place—filing an appeal with the villagers’ election committee—cannot provide a genuinely neutral means of correcting errors because the adjudicator and the party being appealed against are often the same entity. This was not a technical legislative oversight, but an objective institutional consequence: between “protecting villagers’ self-governance” and “