debate and just want to point out that the $450B drop in NHE Yale/Galvani estimates is even more negligible than the estimated $2T drop in NHE the Mercatus/Blahous study came up with:
https://assets.ctfassets.net/4ubxbgy9463z/2Tg9oB55ICu2vtYBaKKcVr/d124e0eeb128ad3a8d8ab8a6ccae44c0/20191031_Medicare_for_All_Cost_Letter___Appendices_FINAL.pdf#page=5

... the study Bernie and his supporters have (either knowingly or unknowingly) been referencing for months as evidence his single-payer proposal will be cheaper for taxpayers compared to the status quo/other approaches (it's not). The author/Blahous himself warns this is not an accurate take away msg:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/aug/03/bernie-sanders/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

You and I have argued at length on here about how/whether it's misleading to portray NHE reduction as taxpayer savings:

https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13354635&mesg_id=13354635&listing_type=search#13357419

so I'm not actually interested in relitigating lol. But I know one rebuttal you've leaned on when we've argued is that focusing on the costs (or, as you said, "wonkery") of delivering care ignores moral considerations. The lives saved/life-years gained metrics used in this Yale/Galvani study you link remind me why I disagree with you so strongly on that.

Aside from the fact that $450B in economy-wide savings would be virtually imperceptible to lower- and middle-income taxpayers forced to pay an estimated X% more of their paycheck to foot the bill for Bernie's system, there are also very strong moral implications in severely reducing the quality of care. Health insurance coverage is only one component of health care access. Multiple studies have identified that provider rates would have to go way down for a single-payer system to save money whatsoever, even if just NHE. It's absurd to assume that significantly slashing the rates for every doctor, dentist, surgeon, etc in the US wouldn't cause major distortion in their participation moving forward.

Promising expanded benefits (eg. dental, vision) and then kneecapping the supply of doctors, dentists, surgeons, etc to meet sharply increased patient demand would just compromise access to timely healthcare in the US for *everyone* (except the folks who could afford private contracts with providers via a concierge model, which Bernie's bill explicitly allows for in Title III, S.303: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text#toc-id9284868594934585837028a98cfaec3b). All while charging everyone (making more than 29k) X% more of their earnings to help pay for it.

I just think there's a moral imperative for the numbers to make sense too, since this affects people actually being able to access providers and hospitals in a timely and susainable fashion


>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
>