India as a future super power? 🇮🇳

[Imback]

Over 50 million people in America skip health care services cause they can't afford it. Like I said, you're literally bragging about keeping poor people out of hospitals.

In The U.S., A Health Care System Rich In Resources, Poor In Outcomes

The U.S. spends twice as much on medical care per person than other wealthy countries. That has led to a health care system that’s rich in resources, but with health outcomes that are remarkably poor.

www.wfae.org

So you have a global healthcare emergency room fact that was just a lie. You revert to healthcare services to convert that lie.

Have you ever googled how many ppl avoid healthcare services in a universal system?

You haven’t Britain's NHS was once idolized. Now its worst-ever crisis is fueling a boom in private health care | CNN Business


It’s way way way worse.

As that article shows, we can pay for things like extra emergency room space because we spend over twice as much on health care as those Nordic countries do. Yet our outcomes are far WORSE than those nations, because we're forcing people to rely on expensive emergency room care rather than ensuring they get good care long before then.

Imagine what our hospitals would look like if we suddenly slashed health care funding by more than half across the country. Our system would collapse, it wouldn't even function. Yet Nordic countries function just fine under those funding levels AND with universal access and somehow manage significantly better outcomes than we do.

Nordic countries cap emergency room services.

For example if there was a large group of immigrants that populated an area without an emergency room. They limit any new builds of emergency rooms in the area to limit services.

So I’m guessing we should do that in Chicago, Detroit, San Antonio?
Nordic countries also treat 70% of healthcare processes we treats.
For example:
Zero Nordic nations cover comprehensive sickle cell treatments.

Zero

What the hell does exporting pills have to do with health care expenditure? India's pharma exports are completely irrelevant to whether or not their people get health care.


Government there says per-capita health care expenditure is 3,516 rupees per person. That's $42.

India's per capita health spend highest in nearly 15 years: Health ministry data

India's real per capita health spending in 2019-20 was the highest since 2004-05, reaching ₹3,516.

www.google.com

I just realized they normed it to 2012 rupee levels, so in current dollars it's actually $58 per person. Not much better. So the USA spends 220x more than India does per person.

Indians get the cheapest drug treatments worldwide.

They currently receive the cheapest form of Covid 19 pill treatment worldwide and they’re replicating the pill to make it cheaper . I guess pills don’t matter then.

They have the cheapest prices and highest revenues.


You’re smart but you’re fukking dumb as fukk too. Your confirmation bias is off the charts

And $58 number is stupid low bc you’re lazy in your analysis

Nha numbers are like Medicaid numbers. It’s less than 25% of all ppl receiving healthcare services.


How long have you just been making shyt up and getting daps for your laziness?

 

[Imback]

@Rhakim supports a system that just started treating black conditions in 2022 NHS England » NHS treats first sickle cell disease patients with life-changing drug

Black ppl started a sickle foundations in major black states in the 1970’s in America .

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Let's point out, first of all, that you haven't proposed the slightest mechanism for the issues you claim other than, "Let's keep poor people from accessing care." Your entire argument is "Universal care bad, here's some random info I don't understand", yet you haven't shown how universal care would cause those issues outside of "Now poor people go to doctors too."

So you have a global healthcare emergency room fact that was just a lie. You revert to healthcare services to convert that lie.


It’s way way way worse.


Nordic countries cap emergency room services.

For example if there was a large group of immigrants that populated an area without an emergency room. They limit any new builds of emergency rooms in the area to limit services.

Breh, what part of what I said did you not understand? THEIR SYSTEM HAS LESS THAN HALF THE FUNDING AND STILL HAS BETTER OUTCOMES.

WTF do you think our system would look like at their funding levels?

So I’m guessing we should do that in Chicago, Detroit, San Antonio?

Well they're doing way better than those cities in terms of health outcomes despite far less funding, so maybe we need to think about doing something different?

WTF do you think would happen in cities like Detroit and Chicago if we suddenly slashed health care expenditure to less than half of current levels?

Indians get the cheapest drug treatments worldwide.

They currently receive the cheapest form of Covid 19 pill treatment worldwide and they’re replicating the pill to make it cheaper . I guess pills don’t matter then.

They have the cheapest prices and highest revenues.

Yeah breh, handwave away them having less than 0.5% of our health care spending cause of "cheaper pills."

From the way you talk, I'm pretty sure only one of us has ever had to help someone seek treatment in an Indian hospital. The most grimey ghetto hospital you've ever been in looks like Paradise compared to there.

You’re smart but you’re fukking dumb as fukk too. Your confirmation bias is off the charts

And $58 number is stupid low bc you’re lazy in your analysis

Nha numbers are like Medicaid numbers. It’s less than 25% of all ppl receiving healthcare services.


How long have you just been making shyt up and getting daps for your laziness?

So did you not even read, or are you just straight lying? The article says that figure is TOTAL health care expenditures, not just government spending. If it was government spending alone it would be just 2014 rupees ($25).

While over half of this growth came from the government spending more on health, households’ out-of-pocket (OOP) health spending was also at a three year high in the fiscal year just before the pandemic. The government and household contribution to health spending was 41.4% and 47.1% respectively in 2019-20, the highest and lowest by the two in the NHA series.

“One of the significant parts is that the percentage of health expenditure incurred by government has increased significantly. In per capita terms, in 2014-15, the government used to spend almost ₹1100 per capita and in 2019-20, it has increased to ₹2014, which is almost double. In terms of percentages, it was 1.13% of GDP earlier and has become 1.35% of GDP in 2019-20,” said Union health secretary, Rajesh Bhushan.

Really want to know whether you didn't understand the article, didn't read the article, or just straight lied.

Why do people step into conversations and try to claim authority in a subject they know nothing about?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@Rhakim supports a system that just started treating black conditions in 2022 NHS England » NHS treats first sickle cell disease patients with life-changing drug

Black ppl started a sickle foundations in major black states in the 1970’s in America .

Holy shyt breh, you really can't read.

That article is about the brand new drug crizanlizumab. It wasn't available in the USA either until 2020, wasn't covered by insurance until later than that (and still not for everyone), and there are serious doubts it even works. Why are you even talking about the 1970s?

 

[Imback]

Holy shyt breh, you really can't read.

That article is about the brand new drug crizanlizumab. It wasn't available in the USA either until 2020, wasn't covered by insurance until later than that (and still not for everyone), and there are serious doubts it even works. Why are you even talking about the 1970s?

Bc crizanlizumab is like the 20th drug black scientists have produced since the 1970’s that’s been fda approved in the USA.


If you google sickle cell treatment until this drug was approved in the uk, they denied every treatment until this one bc not enough “ppl” had the condition.

Which took a joint uk/USA marketing effort just to get approved. And the us blacks led the process

The reason uk never treated sickle cell or any predominately black concentrated health condition is bc the government controls which healthcare processes can be approved for treatment or even gov funding to identify resources to try to treat minorities.


So you are advocating for a statistical based system that immediately denies treatment and/or the development of treatment processes for minorities bc not enough ppl experience the conditions for the allocation of monetary resources to try to heal those people.


The only reason uk black patients got their first drug in 2022 is bc we collectively created treatment processes in America 50 years ago and went through 20 iterations before black ppl in europe got help and the universal systems said ok.


Their treatment process for it until 2020 fukking 1 in Europe was ibuprofen and fluids. That’s how they treated it.

And you want to bring that same mindset and guidance here, when we worked our asses off to treat our ppl.

You’re a fukking c00n and have zero idea you are

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Black ppl started a sickle foundations in major black states in the 1970’s in America .

I cant prove this but I thought the UK was leading in sickle cell research and gene therapies for some reason. I know they had one of the major malaria vaccine trials too.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If you google sickle cell treatment until this drug was approved in the uk, they denied every treatment until this one bc not enough “ppl” had the condition.

Your claim that this is the first NHS-approved sickle cell treatment is definitely false, because hydroxycarbamide was in use as a sickle cell treatment in NHS before crizanlizumab was. And you're still ignoring that the largest, most recent studies continue to show that crizanlizumab has no better outcomes than a placebo, while also having more side effects than the placebo.

Can you cite some sort of legitimate source for these wild claims you keep making?


I'm also concerned that 99% of sickle cell patients in London survive to adulthood, but only 94% of sickle cell patients in the United States survive to adulthood.

Survival in adults with sickle cell disease in a high-income setting

To the editor:

ashpublications.org

It looks from casual research that overall life expectancy for sickle cell is higher in the UK than in the USA too. If your only complaint about the UK system is that it's failing to approve medications which don't appear to have been helping anyway, that's not much of complaint. It's well known that the FDA has often approved extremely expensive medications with little to no benefit, because there were profits to be made.

Any legitimate evidence that health outcomes for sickle cell patients are better in the USA than in the UK would be appreciated. ANY evidence.

And note that you are STILL not addressing the core issue I already pointed out to you, which is that the USA spends over twice as much on health care as other countries do. So if UK has equal or better results despite half as much spending, that's an enormous indictment on the American system.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The fact that someone tried to use "health care in India sucks" as a jumping off point to "universal health care is bad, capitalist USA rules!" is fukking wild. Especially considering that India doesn't even have universal health care and overall has really shytty health coverage of their population compared to ANY first-world country regardless of system.

Some folk need to back off their agendas for 10 seconds and try to figure out what context they're in.

 

[Imback]

The fact that someone tried to use "health care in India sucks" as a jumping off point to "universal health care is bad, capitalist USA rules!" is fukking wild. Especially considering that India doesn't even have universal health care and overall has really shytty health coverage of their population compared to ANY first-world country regardless of system.

Some folk need to back off their agendas for 10 seconds and try to figure out what context they're in.

You complained about the wait time for emergency rooms in India and I told you that was bc of their healthcare system and I didn’t want that shyt in the USA

You brought up how the USA system is bad

Why do you act so disingenuous and act like you didn’t participate in the conversation or start the process of discussing the us healthcare system being terrible.


I can respond when you change the topic of conversation. Bc I disagree with you. So now I’m an American rules capitalist bc I disagree with you

 

[Imback]

Your claim that this is the first NHS-approved sickle cell treatment is definitely false, because hydroxycarbamide was in use as a sickle cell treatment in NHS before crizanlizumab was. And you're still ignoring that the largest, most recent studies continue to show that crizanlizumab has no better outcomes than a placebo, while also having more side effects than the placebo.

Can you cite some sort of legitimate source for these wild claims you keep making?


I'm also concerned that 99% of sickle cell patients in London survive to adulthood, but only 94% of sickle cell patients in the United States survive to adulthood.

Survival in adults with sickle cell disease in a high-income setting

To the editor:

ashpublications.org

It looks from casual research that overall life expectancy for sickle cell is higher in the UK than in the USA too. If your only complaint about the UK system is that it's failing to approve medications which don't appear to have been helping anyway, that's not much of complaint. It's well known that the FDA has often approved extremely expensive medications with little to no benefit, because there were profits to be made.

Any legitimate evidence that health outcomes for sickle cell patients are better in the USA than in the UK would be appreciated. ANY evidence.

And note that you are STILL not addressing the core issue I already pointed out to you, which is that the USA spends over twice as much on health care as other countries do. So if UK has equal or better results despite half as much spending, that's an enormous indictment on the American system.

Well first in regards to the quantifying healthcare costs, the USA calculates it differently than the uk.

In the simplest way the largest difference is we include real estate costs in our calculation which are a ton and the UK doesn’t count social care for example (disabled ppl, old ppl bedridden, broader social services) in their calculation. Uk also caps spending on these services at a lifetime value of 75k.

So if you go past 75k in your LIFETIME got to open that wallet playboy . 100% of the cost are on you


We pay for all those services in Medicaid and Medicare until you die. We also send them money


A lot “universal healthcare” systems have tons of carve outs like this.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You complained about the wait time for emergency rooms in India and I told you that was bc of their healthcare system and I didn’t want that shyt in the USA

You don't realize how insane that deflection is? No one has proposed bringing Indian-style healthcare to the United States.


You still haven't addressed the fact that they only spend $58/person on healthcare TOTAL. You tried to lie and claim that was only government care. Nah man, that's total healthcare expenditures.

Their largest state, Uttar Pradesh, only has 1 government doctor for every 18,000 people.

Only 1 doctor for 18,000 people in Uttar Pradesh | Lucknow News - Times of India

LUCKNOW: There is only one doctor in government sector for every 18,000 people in Uttar Pradesh, a state that has a population of over 20 crore.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Well first in regards to the quantifying healthcare costs, the USA calculates it differently than the uk.

In the simplest way the largest difference is we include real estate costs in our calculation which are a ton and the UK doesn’t count social care for example (disabled ppl, old ppl bedridden, broader social services) in their calculation. Uk also caps spending on these services at a lifetime value of 75k.

So if you go past 75k in your LIFETIME got to open that wallet playboy . 100% of the cost are on you

Can you give a citation for that? Because it looks like the exact opposite. This article suggests there's a lifetime cap on how much INDIVIDUALS have to spend on those services - so if you go over that then the government automatically covers everything, you never have to pay another cent.

"On 7 September 2021 the Prime Minister announced that from October 2023, the government will introduce a new £86,000 cap on the amount anyone in England will need to spend on their personal care over their lifetime....This will provide financial protection from unlimited care costs and, as a result, give people peace of mind from knowing that they will keep more of their assets when paying for their care."

Operational guidance to implement a lifetime cap on care costs

www.gov.uk

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point or something, but I'd love a citation. Because I've already caught you making blatantly false claims on every other topic we've discussed, and you're yet to cite backup for any of them.

 

[Imback]

You don't realize how insane that deflection is? No one has proposed bringing Indian-style healthcare to the United States.


You still haven't addressed the fact that they only spend $58/person on healthcare TOTAL. You tried to lie and claim that was only government care. Nah man, that's total healthcare expenditures.

Their largest state, Uttar Pradesh, only has 1 government doctor for every 18,000 people.

Only 1 doctor for 18,000 people in Uttar Pradesh | Lucknow News - Times of India

LUCKNOW: There is only one doctor in government sector for every 18,000 people in Uttar Pradesh, a state that has a population of over 20 crore.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Where are getting $58 dollars per person? Where’s this number coming from

This fact is for government employed doctors, not all doctors

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Where are getting $58 dollars per person? Where’s this number coming from

I gave you the link once already:

India's per capita health spend highest in nearly 15 years: Health ministry data

India's real per capita health spending in 2019-20 was the highest since 2004-05, reaching ₹3,516.

www.hindustantimes.com

Other links:

https://www.moneylife.in/article/india-spent-316-percentage-of-gdp-on-healthcare-rs4470-per-capita-in-2018-19/68323.html

India Healthcare Spending 2000-2023

Current expenditures on health per capita in current US dollars. Estimates of current health expenditures include healthcare goods and services consumed during each year.

www.macrotrends.net

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

This fact is for government employed doctors, not all doctors

Yes, I posted it to kill your claim that India has some sort of massive public health system.

Their government-funded healthcare is fukking bare bones. They spend a tiny fraction of the money per-person than we doing. Suggesting that Indian healthcare is ANYTHING like anything that could ever exist in the USA was an absolutely ridiculous idea to throw into the conversation.

 

[Imback]

Can you give a citation for that? Because it looks like the exact opposite. This article suggests there's a lifetime cap on how much INDIVIDUALS have to spend on those services - so if you go over that then the government automatically covers everything, you never have to pay another cent.

"On 7 September 2021 the Prime Minister announced that from October 2023, the government will introduce a new £86,000 cap on the amount anyone in England will need to spend on their personal care over their lifetime....This will provide financial protection from unlimited care costs and, as a result, give people peace of mind from knowing that they will keep more of their assets when paying for their care."

Operational guidance to implement a lifetime cap on care costs

www.gov.uk

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point or something, but I'd love a citation. Because I've already caught you making blatantly false claims on every other topic we've discussed, and you're yet to cite backup for any of them.

Article released about a week ago

‘It’s a tax on disability’: rising English social care costs force many into debt | Social care | The Guardian