Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has some interesting thoughts about "Medicare for all," the $33 trillion program (conservatively estimated) she maintains will be affordable.

Her core agenda item will reduce the problem of funeral expenses because it will provide more Americans with access to healthcare, she explained this week during an interview on CNN.

“Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is. And what we're also not talking about is why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can't afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system,” she said.

She added, “I think at the end of the day we see that this is not a pipe dream. Every other developed nation in the world does this."

No, it's not true that every "developed nation in the world does this." Forget it; she’s rolling.

"Why can't America? And that is the question that we need to ask. We have done these things before. We write unlimited blank checks for war," she said.

Ocasio-Cortez also tried to delegitimize a recent Mercatus Center study, which put the price tag of "Medicare for all" at $33 trillion, suggesting the report is some shadowy attempt by the Koch bogeymen to scare people away from the promised land of universal healthcare.

Never mind that the Mercatus report squares with other studies.

“You know, in a Koch brothers-funded study, if any study's going to try to be a little bit slanted it would be one funded by the Koch brothers, it shows that 'Medicare for all' is actually much more – is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now,” she said.

First, the study wasn’t “funded” by libertarian brothers Charles and David Koch, even if the Mercatus Center has received donations from them. Second, the study says exactly the opposite of what she claimed on CNN. It said "Medicare for all" would add $32.6 trillion in spending in the first 10 years.

So that means she's only off by $33 trillion.

Ocasio-Cortez explained further that "Medicare for all" will produce long-term economic benefits because it will increase overall productivity and cut down on the number of individuals going on disability because of "issues like diabetes.”

"Why don't we talk about the cost of reduced productivity because of people who need to go on disability, because of people who are not able to participate in our economy, because they have – because they're having issues like diabetes or they don't have access to the healthcare that they need?" she asked.

It’s clear she thinks "Medicare for all" is a cure-all solution to what ails the United States — and, more incredibly, that access to Medicare will suddenly cause diabetes rates to plummet.

Someone on her staff should do her a solid and let her know, first of all, that access to healthcare does not mean fewer people will die. The death rate will always remain 100 percent, and no government-funded program is going to change that.

[Also read: Delaware primary shows looming battle among Democrats over ‘Medicare for all’]