> , the Urban institute has shown through casual analysis that 18,000 uninsured people die annually through lack of healthcare
Same methodology problems as the Harvard one - does not establish causation, another group of other studies find no change in mortality. I.e this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739025/
"*The Institute of Medicine's estimate that lack of insurance leads to 18,000 excess deaths each year is almost certainly incorrect. It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States.*"

> Regardless of whether one number may be slightly inaccurate, the majority of the studies agree that Medicare for all would reduce admin costs
It's VERY inaccurate; almost all studies on M4A agree it will reduce admin costs - but the reduction is more modest than the Lancet one.

I.e The optimistic estimates put Medicare for All achieving rates of 6% on admin costs, but it's probably slightly higher.

Death
risk appears to be 25 percent or higher for people with certain chronic conditions, which led to the IOM esti- mate of some 18,000 extra deaths per year.

🆙 | **Thememelord leveled up!**

That’s from the Urban institute

The study I sent refuted the 18k deaths one, TL;DR it's the same problems as the Harvard one.

There is probably deaths due to lack of insurance, but in the thousands at most - not 40k, 20k etc.

The reason why I'm saying all this is because I see medicare for all as the worst possible solution to a problem out there, comparing to other country's systems too.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ The UK excellent healthcare and half the costs

The UK does not have Medicare for All, not even close. But even so, the UK in the developed world has one of the largest waiting times; one of the worst outcomes.

And not necessarily 'half the costs', if you're looking at per capita spending by country keep in mind the US will naturally have a disadvantage as: it has much more health problems than the other countries, i.e UK and a higher income.

Higher income causes healthcare expenditures to be higher, not a bad thing.

We can't just have extremely low spending, we need a balance. I believe my system will find the optimal.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Wdym, by medicare for all I mean a single payer healthcare system such as is propsed by Bernie Sanders. It’d move the US to a system similar to the UK

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ What is your system

Medicare for all wants to: ban private insurance; remove cost sharing; cover a large amount of things, i.e dentist works and provide insurance to everyone via the government. Many countries do the last one "provide insurance to everyone via the government", but NO countries do all of the 4 and literally near 0 do the first 3.

The UK has nationalised hospitals too, care givers - I wouldn't want to move to that and Sanders' plan doesn't.

But it has not banned private insurance.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ No the US actuall consums less healthcare it’s that it is much more expensive per capita

Useful comparison

https://international.commonwealthfund.org/stats/annual_physician_visits/

Yep?

That’s misleading, he doesn’t want to eliminate copays, just reduced them

I'm pretty sure he does.

And on the point of Admin costs the US spends around twice as much as Canada

Agree, but it's not comparable

Costs are different, the way admin costs are calculated are also different etc.

We cannot just match them, we won't.

Every nation that has implemented any version of single payer has dramatically lower admin costs. If we adopt the system then there will be a drop in admin costs

We are not every other nation, costs are different. Admin costs will fall but at best to 6%, **at best**.

You can't compare across other countries, especially when the systems are totally different.

You did say this
> What is your system
A full private, market based system.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Why

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Not any gov intervention?

Well I believe it's the most efficient: low wait times, high quality and low spending. All without higher taxes, high government spending.

To your question, gov intervention is the main reason why prices are currently high: regulatory burdens and taxes raising costs. Naturally there would be *some* intervention, but much lower than now.

Sorry I think you misunderstood, why can’t the US get under 6% when so many other single payer nations have

The UK for example is at 2%

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ to your point about gov intervention, then why are costs so much lower in countries that have single payer healthcare systems

The costs and ways the healthcare systems are run are different, to what I said:
> The study naively assumes that because Medicare has 2.2% of its expenditures being overheads while private insurance has 13%, we can assume M4A will match 2.2%. But Medicare and Private have different costs, Medicare also piggybanks of the social security system, FBI, DOJ etc deflating their costs on paper.
>
> Also the reason why it's 2.2% is partly because healthcare expenditures for those on Medicare are very high, so this reduces the denominator in the division.

The US which has objectivly some of the least interventionist policies in the world also has some of the highest prices

> to your point about gov intervention, then why are costs so much lower in countries that have single payer healthcare systems
We need to classify which countries, every country has a vastly different system.

> The US which has objectivly some of the least interventionist policies
This isn't true, there are A LOT of regulations in the healthcare market.