4 ms·

Why is this so hard to understand? Why would 1.3 billion people want $7,200 in coverage at once? If that happens then it's a mega catastrophe of proportions tha

Why is this so hard to understand? Why would 1.3 billion people want $7,200 in coverage at once? If that happens then it's a mega catastrophe of proportions that the entire World would not be prepared to bear. That would also mean the end of the World as we know it. So let's be realistic shall we? Of those 1.3 billion people hardly 0.1% of them might fall ill in any given year. That's 13 million people. That's still a huge number. Of them how many do you think would be critically ill? 100%? 75%? 50%? 25%? Let's take 25%. That would still be a huge number of critically ill patients (3.25 million). The total number of cancer patients in India per year is around 7 lakhs, which is 0.7 million (http://cancerindia.org.in/statistics/ http://cancerindia.org.in/statistics/) so my guesstimate of 3.25 million makes sense (even though I feel it's higher then what the actual stats are). Only such kind of people would need the $7,200 insurance because critical illness care is cheaper in India compared to any other country. You don't need $7,200 to treat malaria or flu or to get your wisdom tooth removed (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Wisdom-lies-in-getting-tooth-extracted-in-India/articleshow/26613578.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Wisdom-li...). You need that kind of amount if you get cancer/stroke etc. Of those 3.25 million patients what percentage do you think are people who can afford private healthcare and those can't? Of those who can afford how many of them are covered by their employers group health insurance or have their own insurance purchased as part of tax saving initiatives? Now you do the math and you'll get your answer.

PeterisP 8y ago
"hardly 0.1% of them might fall ill in any given year" is a very unrealistic assumption - is service is available (which is not universal in India at the moment, but is promised to be with this reform) the expected number of annual per capita doctors visits is at least 1 (OECD country average is 7, poorer countries get 1-2), not 0.001, a thousandfold difference. Not all people won't get ill in a given year, but a large portion does; it depends on how severe illnesses you count but it's 30-60%, not 0.1% or 1%; and some people (much more than 0.1%) get multiple illnesses in a single year. I'm arguing that on average people (all 1.3 billion of them) need much, much more than $1 of coverage each year. You don't need $7200 to treat common diseases, but many of them will need more than $1. For every person that needs $0 of coverage there will be one that needs more than $2. If the estimate was comparable to $10 per person (so, excluding private insurance, roughly $10 billion total not $1-2 billion), then it might be worth starting a discussion about the details and how much what costs. But $1/person/year is so ridiculous that it's off the charts.
- shripadk 8y ago
  > "hardly 0.1% of them might fall ill in any given year" is a very unrealistic assumption It's very realistic. Because if a 100 million people fell ill in India, we would have classified it as a national health emergency and the World would start taking notice. You are talking about bubonic plague level proportions. That is a world-wide emergency. That's the reason I say your numbers are absolutely ridiculous. Stop being so blinded by numbers that you forget the human element behind it. The realistic number is somewhere in the range of what I said. Let's be sensible when talking such things. > is service is available (which is not universal in India at the moment, but is promised to be with this reform) the expected number of annual per capita doctors visits is at least 1 (OECD country average is 7, poorer countries get 1-2), not 0.001, a thousandfold difference Doctor visit is not the same as being eligible for $7,200 worth of coverage. In India, doctor visits are generally free unless you are visiting a really high profile doctor. It's not the USA where even the visit requires you to deposit hundreds of dollars in consultation fees. > Not all people won't get ill in a given year, but a large portion does; it depends on how severe illnesses you count but it's 30-60%, not 0.1% or 1%; and some people (much more than 0.1%) get multiple illnesses in a single year. I already gave you figures. 0.7 million are cancer patients per year in India. Cancer is classified as a critical illness. The cost for it is approximately $7000 dollars. $7,200 dollars is more than sufficient to cover the expenses. So you are totally wrong here. I don't understand how you can say it's 30-60% when the national statistics I linked to say 0.7 million are cancer patients per year (which is 0.0538% of India's population). Don't throw numbers in the air without some facts backing your claims. Considering cancer is one of the major critical illnesses I extrapolated that number to around 3.25 million people with critical illness. That is almost 5 times the cancer number stats put out by reputed source (http://cancerindia.org.in/statistics/ http://cancerindia.org.in/statistics/). > I'm arguing that on average people (all 1.3 billion of them) need much, much more than $1 of coverage each year. You don't need $7200 to treat common diseases, but many of them will need more than $1. For every person that needs $0 of coverage there will be one that needs more than $2. That's the reason I talked about specific critical illnesses like cancer/stroke etc. I guess you decided to skip that entirely. > If the estimate was comparable to $10 per person (so, excluding private insurance, roughly $10 billion total not $1-2 billion), then it might be worth starting a discussion about the details and how much what costs. But $1/person/year is so ridiculous that it's off the charts. Sorry to say but it's your argument that is ridiculous because it stems from the fact that $1/person/year is the coverage when it's not. No insurance company works that way in any part of the World. Seriously, learn how insurance works first.

PeterisP 8y ago

"hardly 0.1% of them might fall ill in any given year" is a very unrealistic assumption - is service is available (which is not universal in India at the moment, but is promised to be with this reform) the expected number of annual per capita doctors visits is at least 1 (OECD country average is 7, poorer countries get 1-2), not 0.001, a thousandfold difference. Not all people won't get ill in a given year, but a large portion does; it depends on how severe illnesses you count but it's 30-60%, not 0.1% or 1%; and some people (much more than 0.1%) get multiple illnesses in a single year. I'm arguing that on average people (all 1.3 billion of them) need much, much more than $1 of coverage each year. You don't need $7200 to treat common diseases, but many of them will need more than $1. For every person that needs $0 of coverage there will be one that needs more than $2. If the estimate was comparable to $10 per person (so, excluding private insurance, roughly $10 billion total not $1-2 billion), then it might be worth starting a discussion about the details and how much what costs. But $1/person/year is so ridiculous that it's off the charts.

shripadk 8y ago
> "hardly 0.1% of them might fall ill in any given year" is a very unrealistic assumption It's very realistic. Because if a 100 million people fell ill in India, we would have classified it as a national health emergency and the World would start taking notice. You are talking about bubonic plague level proportions. That is a world-wide emergency. That's the reason I say your numbers are absolutely ridiculous. Stop being so blinded by numbers that you forget the human element behind it. The realistic number is somewhere in the range of what I said. Let's be sensible when talking such things. > is service is available (which is not universal in India at the moment, but is promised to be with this reform) the expected number of annual per capita doctors visits is at least 1 (OECD country average is 7, poorer countries get 1-2), not 0.001, a thousandfold difference Doctor visit is not the same as being eligible for $7,200 worth of coverage. In India, doctor visits are generally free unless you are visiting a really high profile doctor. It's not the USA where even the visit requires you to deposit hundreds of dollars in consultation fees. > Not all people won't get ill in a given year, but a large portion does; it depends on how severe illnesses you count but it's 30-60%, not 0.1% or 1%; and some people (much more than 0.1%) get multiple illnesses in a single year. I already gave you figures. 0.7 million are cancer patients per year in India. Cancer is classified as a critical illness. The cost for it is approximately $7000 dollars. $7,200 dollars is more than sufficient to cover the expenses. So you are totally wrong here. I don't understand how you can say it's 30-60% when the national statistics I linked to say 0.7 million are cancer patients per year (which is 0.0538% of India's population). Don't throw numbers in the air without some facts backing your claims. Considering cancer is one of the major critical illnesses I extrapolated that number to around 3.25 million people with critical illness. That is almost 5 times the cancer number stats put out by reputed source (http://cancerindia.org.in/statistics/ http://cancerindia.org.in/statistics/). > I'm arguing that on average people (all 1.3 billion of them) need much, much more than $1 of coverage each year. You don't need $7200 to treat common diseases, but many of them will need more than $1. For every person that needs $0 of coverage there will be one that needs more than $2. That's the reason I talked about specific critical illnesses like cancer/stroke etc. I guess you decided to skip that entirely. > If the estimate was comparable to $10 per person (so, excluding private insurance, roughly $10 billion total not $1-2 billion), then it might be worth starting a discussion about the details and how much what costs. But $1/person/year is so ridiculous that it's off the charts. Sorry to say but it's your argument that is ridiculous because it stems from the fact that $1/person/year is the coverage when it's not. No insurance company works that way in any part of the World. Seriously, learn how insurance works first.