would also achieve universal coverage (i.e. reduce uninsured population by at least 30M), Sanders' plan isn't the only one that could save lives tho.

Warren's plan, which would achieve near universal coverage and thus save just as many lives, does so without taking sizeable chunks off the paychecks of lower- and middle-income taxpayers.

Buttigieg's plan, which would also achieve near-universal coverage and thus save just as many lives, does so without taking sizeable chunks off the paychecks of lower- and middle-income taxpayers AND without blowing up the debt AND while meeting deficit-control/PAYGO requirements that current law necessitates for legislation to actually pass.

I don't think the debate among Dems is whether those 68000 lives should be saved, it's about the picking a sustainable approach that can actually get passed into law to save them. I think the most comprehensive look so far comparing the frontrunners' plans has been by the (independent, non-partisan) Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:

https://www.crfb.org/papers/primary-care-estimating-leading-democratic-candidates-health-plans



>Just thought these 2 important articles should be documented
>in the political discussion and didn't want to start a new
>thread.
>
>New Yale Study shows Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion
>and Prevent 68,000 Deaths Every Year
>