Firstly, note the word 'marginal' - we're not talking about paying 60 percent on your entire income.

Secondly, it seems to be calculated based on the ridiculous assumption that you can take the CBO's estimated impact of a 1 percentage point increase of the marginal tax rate, and simply multiply it by whatever it takes to get to 32 trillion (905 billion for a 1 percent increase times 36 makes 32 trillion). I'm pretty sure the impact of marginal tax rate increases isn't linear like that - so probably a 36 percent increase in the marginal tax rate wouldn't even be enough.

Thirdly and most importantly, 32 trillion over ten years, so 3.2 trillion per year or over 15 percent of total US GDP, is a crazy high number - until you compare it to the current annual US health expenditure of, er, 3.5 trillion per year, expected to grow to 5.7 trillion per year and close to 20 percent of total US GDP by 2026 (based on the article here). Which, as you may or may not know, is quite a lot higher than the percentage of GDP that most other Western countries spend on healthcare.

Which brings us to the obvious point: the cost of Medicare for All should not be viewed as additional to current healthcare spending, but as largely replacing current healthcare spending. Which at the moment is financed in part by the government, especially when it comes to the seniors covered under Medicare, but mainly by individuals buying insurance, individuals paying out of pocket, and companies buying insurance for their employees. No doubt Medicare for All would entail a gigantic increase in federal spending, but it would also entail a gigantic reduction in what individuals and companies currently pay for their healthcare.

None of that means that Medicare for All is necessarily a good or feasible proposal - and no doubt many Americans oppose it on general principle because they don't want to massively grow federal spending, regardless of whether or not that would be more efficient. Even if socialized healthcare offers equally good or better results at a significantly lower total price tag, it doesn't follow that you necessarily have a viable path to get from the current American system to 'Medicare for All' and indeed end up with better value for money. But frankly this kind of stupid apples to oranges comparison just makes you look like you're too scared to have a serious debate on that topic.