Please tone down the rhetoric if you want to have a productive, rational discussion. It's disappointing to come across comments like yours on HN.
> look no further than healthcare for all by every study[0], showing it would SAVE money
Your source lists, among others, a "study by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center"[0], which presumably would be the strongest argument against their position that "Medicare for All" would save money. It claims that even the aforementioned study found that M4A "would save around $2 trillion over a 10-year period", which they arrived at by the cumulative 10-year estimated savings on national healthcare expenditures, but fails to mention it also estimates that an additional $32T will need to be raised over the same time period to pay for it.
The UMass Amherst study[1], presumably more favorably inclined to M4A, estimates that an additional $20T will be needed over 10 years to finance it.
So all of those studies are really just saying that in the aggregate, we would spend less on the direct healthcare expenses through a combination of better drug pricing, removing redundant administration (both private and public), and paying providers less, but at the cost of needing to raise much more in taxes than we would save on those direct healthcare expenses. Which makes sense, since a lot more people would be covered under M4A than currently, and you may very well argue that that is an admirable goal; but it's a verbal sleight of hand to say that somehow the nation as a whole would save money. It's just shifting where the money is counted and who pays for what.
At the individual level, sure, some people may come out ahead, especially those not targeted by the burden of the additional required taxation.
Over the past 10 years, the health insurance industry as a whole made about $15B in profits per year[2] and spends another $81B a year on administration (salaries for workers, etc). Let's round that up to an even $100B a year and call it a "parasitic expense" that the for-profit health insurance industry charges on society as a whole and still leaves some people uninsured. If we remove that $100B and add the $2-3.2T a year that M4A would require, what happens? Your source says it'll save 68k lives a year, which would come at a cost of (taking $2.5T as the midpoint of the estimates) $36.8M per life. Fantastic! It's estimated that there are 27.6 million people who don't have health insurance currently. Great, now they will be insured at a cost of $90k a year. But of course, at least nobody would have to pay a dime out of pocket.
M4A is not a magic wand to be waved that will produce more and better healthcare for free. Honestly, a federally-funded mandatory fat camp would lower total health expenditures a lot more for a lot less money.
And more broadly speaking, welfare benefits in general also are not things that will improve society as a whole at no cost. When we're talking about the public's money, the costs and benefits have to be weighed carefully.
[0]: https://default.salsalabs.org/Ta48eb44d-4343-4204-9a7c-846ce...
[1]: https://default.salsalabs.org/T4931fba7-4f9b-4f24-a6f7-edfc3...
[2]: https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/2021-Annual-Hea...