bernies claim that 32.6 trillion would be less than the "status quo" is correct, per the politifact link you sent. bernie isnt the one that chose that calculation, it was the media that ran with that figure saying it would be in addition to current spending. bernie was pointing out its 2 trillion less than if we keep the current system. if you use the other calculation that in 10 years medicare for all could cost 3.2 trillion more over 10 years then you have to assume there are no savings or benefits to be found in medicare for all.

while i would agree that you might not want to say m4a WOULD save 2 trillion it is possible that it might. if we use this study i guess we could go in the middle and say that it might cost 500 billion more over 10 years. considering all the benefits it doesnt seem like a bad investment.

the other point, arent most of the savings/reductions in payments due to cutting overhead? i understand that some doctors/nurses MIGHT get reduced payments but that isnt going to be the rule. what medicare for all is doing is eliminating the "waste" so that more/most of the money goes to actually providing health care and not on managing payments/collections.