1. Irrelevant comparison
2. Ties into the first one but the "coverage cost for all under current system" is totally hypothetical regardless of study (the author can't accurately project what will happen to the "overhead" or it's potential when health insurance customers already buy in bulk without a mandated single payer plan)
3. The current system is cheaper for who it already covers than either of the proposed two alternate scenarios
Tricky for people to interpret but there's actually 3 parameters in play rather than 2 yet we're here complaining about a 6% savings rate for applying medicare for all when our current path comfortably beats both options in savings ?