But they could not tell if it was DUE TO the lack of insurance.

Yes and they found uninsured americans died at disproportionately higher rates

GG @The Meme Lord, you just advanced to level 8!

> And could you be specific. I sent you a meta-analysis of 22 fucking studies and you just say “well it’s too generous”
The studies that find cost savings have unrealistic assumptions.

> Yes and they found uninsured americans died at disproportionately higher rates
While this is true, it does not mean extending insurance to these Americans will reduce their mortality.

And other studies show how people who are uninsured have consistently worse health outcomes

I.e you can't tell if their mortality was CAUSED by lack of insurance.

So if it isn't caused by the lack of insurance, extending insurance will do nothing to save lives.

And with a medicare for all system, no one would be uninsured and this needless death would end

Like I said again, you're assuming these deaths were due to the lack of insurance. Which the study does not establish.

If it isn't, this
> this needless death would end
Is false.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money%3famp

Okay even the urban institute agrees, being uninsured leads to 18,000 deaths annually

Also how do you explain the 45,000 extra deaths among uninsured Americans

Ok you need to understand what I'm saying:
The 45k deaths is from the 2000s in where the researchers looked at two groups: uninsured and insured - compared them a few years later to see if they were alive (after controlling for things of course).
But they **could not** tell if it was DUE TO the lack of insurance.

> Okay even the urban institute agrees, being uninsured leads to 18,000 deaths annually
Yes it's one of the studies in the meta-analysis, but very generous assumptions.

You are being so vague, what to do mean by generous assumptions

And how do you know that all fucking 22 of these studies are generous however you want to define that

Because I've seen most of these studies.

yes

(Quick note, 19 of those studies find a cost saving, the other 3 don't).

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Then could you please explain why the dramatically disproportionate death among uninsured Americans was not due to insurance coverage in any eay

i agree with thememelord

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Also even the RAND study that you tout as proving the unreasonable cost of Medicare for all showed that drug costs would go down 11%

And other studies show bigger drops in prices

I can expand on the assumptions if you want.

> Then could you please explain why the dramatically disproportionate death among uninsured Americans was not due to insurance coverage in any eay
The problem is your study does not establish causation, so it's quite possible it could be due to the fact *treatment is endogenous*. Comparing conditional means in two sets of data is not going to give us an identified causal effect.

Yes the RAND study does show that, but overall spending increases.

> And other studies show bigger drops in prices
Unrealistic assumptions

@The Meme Lord

You keep saying unrealistic assumptions to try to disregard literally dozens of studies but can you elaborate on this in any way, like what is unrealistic and what is realisitc

One point would be the generosity of admin costs assumptions, I'll refer to the Lancet study as an example. 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.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Though that study doesn’t explicitly state causation, if your brain is larger than an ant you can figure out their lack of medical coverage leads to disproportionately worse outcomes and higher death rates. Even if we disregard that study, the Urban institute has shown through casual analysis that 18,000 uninsured people die annually through lack of healthcare, you cannot deny that

> you can figure out their lack of medical coverage leads to disproportionately worse outcomes and higher death rates.
No you can't just assume that, like I said the treatment can be endogenous - meaning expanding insurance won't reduce mortality as lack of insurance does **not** increase mortality. Another way of saying this is "people with car insurance will drive more recklessly because they don't bear the cost".

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Regardless of whether one number may be slightly inaccurate, the majority of the studies agree that Medicare for all would reduce admin costs

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Regardless you can’t deny the Urban institute study

And don’t just say “generous assumptions” be specific

> , 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.