I think we could do it without cutting other essential spending by raising taxes. Keep in mind that, by the standards of wealthy nations generally, we have radically low taxes in this country. Even before Trump's upper-class tax cut went through, we were paying an effective total rate of only around 26% of GDP, where the average for the OECD is 34%, and it's more like 37%, average, for the non-US wealthy OECD countries.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally
We can easily fund Medicare for all just by bringing effective tax rates up part-way towards wealth-nation norms. For example, taking us from 26% to GDP to 34% (leaving us below the new OECD average and well below most wealthy nations), that would bring in about another $1.6 trillion per year.
Now, of course, that would mean more money out of people's pockets for taxes. But the flip side would be less money out of their pockets for health insurance/healthcare. Keep in mind that Medicare-for-all-style systems tend to be cheaper. For example, Canada has Medicare for all and spends half what we do, per capita, on healthcare:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
I don't think we can bring our spending down to Canadian levels, but if we bring them even half-way down to that (while hopefully improving our public health stats part-way to Canadian levels in the process), that's a big savings, and most people are going to come out ahead: the extra tax money they get hit for will be less than the healthcare savings they get.
Of course, some will come out on the other side. Even though, on average, people will come out ahead, and far more people will be on the plus side than the minus, some higher earners would pay more under the new system, net (thus the strong opposition from advocates for the aristocracy), and so would some who already effectively have something as good as "Medicare for All" (unless it's structured so they get a commensurate tax credit).
