universal healthcare is a state function. Insurance, however is a business running on profit-loss benefit. Insurance, by it’s nature is distributing unknown risk. When a risk is known, it needs to be mitigated, not insured against. No one will be willing to share insurance for a risk with a person with known risk factors, and it’s not fair either.

But either way, as long as the government can bring healthcare to everybody, it should be fine. call it insurance, NHS, doesn’t really matter.

-Vivek

Doctors' fees are only one component of the cost. Procedures, diagnostics, hospitals, medicines – everything costs more. Probably holds out some hope for medical tourism, but the distance is a big barrier. Plus, the US system, unlike the UK, doesn't involve long waits for surgery. The cost is high but the patient typically doesn't bear it unless they aren't insured. In which case it is unlikely they will be able to find the airfare.

You raise some good points about the cost and effectiveness of healthcare in India. I have written about Narayan Hrudalaya before http://bit.ly/cMZQOr and I do think that there are things that India can teach the world on low cost effective healthcare.

But I can't agree with you that health insurance can or should be provided in India at this time. The cost is just too high. Your numbers don't look right to me. Rs. 500 is less than the cost of a health check up at Hinduja Hospital in Mumbai. I don't know what Tokio-Iffco insurance covers, but if it doesn't cover diagnostics, surgery, hospitalization, procedures, or if it puts a cap on medical bills, then that's really not very useful.

The other thing to consider is that a healthcare safety net, may not be a high priority for the government. First in line would be a national pension system, which is currently underway. Just like Social Security was done in the US before Medicare.