Emo uncle.

Ah sounds kuda English audience soccer noise sesthunru

Firstly I never said that more people are coming back when compared to people who are going out.I have talked in terms of percentage increases year over year. Keeping that aside, I have already talked about an average guy but will do it again. I hope we are not talking about someone who came long time back. When you talk about lifestyle, we should talk all aspects rathar than just possessions. An average guy coming to US will have to afford doing Masters and lose 2 years. The money spent on Masters and the savings from salary could be invested. Next step would be to struggle in getting a H1B and maintaining it. Inspite of all this, a house and decent car could be bought.....but mostly on loan. He will still have to cook and clean even when work gets hectic or resort to eating outside. Next struggle would be with kids. He would have no support other than parents coming in from India. The brother in India doesn't have to book flight tickets for his parents to visit him Or book flight tickets to make India visits and spend all the accumulated PTOs. Next major issue would be health insurance. Healthcare is cheap in India. Which of the 2 brothers do you think would be able to retire early? In US, after retirement, health insurance in itself would cost couple thousand dollars a month to cover the family. And by the time he becomes a citizen, he will be 50. In the meanwhile, if there is job loss or any other significant event, there won't be a safety net to fall back on in US. Regarding the guy from India, he would be better off renting and using the money to buy land or investing on indexes instead to generate passive income. Rental yeild is very low in India. Its pure stupidity to buy an apartment with low landshare. Don't attribute financial missteps to a problem with the country.

Ee match kastam gone case last match esedhi unde

Stories like this trigger anger because they touch a deep nerve: the feeling that insurance doesn’t play by the same rules for everyone. When people read headlines about celebrities receiving “cashless treatment” or seemingly effortless claim approvals, it reinforces a belief many already carry — that the system works smoothly for the powerful, and painfully for the common buyer. The hook isn’t really about Saif Ali Khan or any single case. It’s about comparison. People immediately contrast it with their own experiences of delays, deductions, and endless follow-ups. The real problem is that insurance outcomes are judged emotionally, but insurance structures are built technically. What looks like “free money” from the outside is often a combination of employer group cover, high-end policy design, negotiated hospital contracts, and zero sub-limits. Meanwhile, most individuals buy retail policies with caps, co-pays, and structural constraints they never fully understood. Both are insured — but not equally protected. This is where frustration turns into the word “scam.” Not because fraud is proven, but because expectations were never calibrated. People assume insurance is a level playing field. In reality, coverage strength varies widely even among regulator-approved policies. The system isn’t secretly changing rules — it’s exposing differences that were always there, just invisible at purchase time. The uncomfortable discovery is that insurance quality isn’t binary. It’s not “has insurance” versus “doesn’t.” It sits on a spectrum shaped by policy structure, insurer claim behavior, location-based medical costs, and how resilient a policy is under stress. Most consumers never see where they fall on that spectrum until a crisis forces the reveal. This gap is exactly what tools like BimaScore are trying to surface early. Instead of relying on stories, headlines, or assumptions, it translates real-world policy strength into a 400–1000 clarity rating. Powered by Bima Analyze — an AI engine that evaluates 100+ real-world factors without document uploads — it helps people understand their position before comparisons become painful. The vision isn’t to defend insurers or dismiss public anger. It’s to replace surprise with awareness. When people know how strong their coverage actually is, stories like these stop feeling personal — and decisions become grounded.