People are mentioning letting people die faster and earlier should reduce costs. But that's too simple. It would reduce costs for the initial payers but the cos

People are mentioning letting people die faster and earlier should reduce costs. But that's too simple. It would reduce costs for the initial payers but the costs (capital and labor) would remain the same for the short term meaning costs for services would have to rise for the providers to pay their fixed capital financing costs and to not have to lay off any labor. It's like inflation. How your buying per is affected depends on when/if you get the new money. Until labor costs go down and we don't have a push for an "MRI on every block" costs won't go down. There seems to be more support jobs today particularly for coding and billing and dealing with insurances which is why single payer is thought to be a way to reduce costs by reducing overhead. It ought to work but then we better be prepared to help those workers who get displaced... Which just shifts the cost(s) somewhere else (sometime needs to pay to retrain displaced workers whose skills and knowledge are no longer needed or possibly even pay unemployment or even welfare to jobless individuals).