One indisputable economic fact is that America’s 17% of GDP healthcare system already serves as a $1 trillion ANNUAL surcharge tax compared to other countries’ 10 – 12% of GDP healthcare systems.
So even if Bernie Sanders just tackled healthcare with single-payer, which is possible only with massive voter turnout to sweep in a Democratic Congress, that annual $1 trillion surcharge in misallocated money being spent on excessive healthcare insurance administration, greed, profit and healthcare/pharmaceutical extortion could be eliminated and replaced with taxes to pay for other items without affecting the nations GDP.
Single-payer would not only tackle that annual $1 trillion healthcare surcharge to Americans, it would also free up employers from the employer-provided healthcare bowling ball and unchain millions of workers from the dead-end jobs they’re glued to just for current employer healthcare coverage.
Single-payer implementation alone would energize America’s economy by unchaining it from its burdensome 18% of GDP tax, unburdening employers from the healthcare industry and freeing more employees to become entrepreneurs.
Thomas Piketty gives the reader a far saner, less shrill view of what is going on in this us election (http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1ZK). Robert Reich is giving voters good explanations and the latest information. A balanced assessment was written by economist Jared Bernstein (http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22a):
"As Joseph Stiglitz, another Nobel Prize winning economist who did NOT sign the letter put’s it, in a massive pile up wreck caused by the finance industry, the ambulance came and took only who caused the wreck to the hospital leaving everyone else to bleed in the street."
Would it be worth mentioning that 170 economists and financial experts have endorsed part of Sanders’s plan?
Much more to the point would be the tremendous doubt surrounding Arthur Okun’s "big trade-off" which claimed that redistribution hurt growth. That never made a lot of sense and we’re starting to catch on:
Mike Miller from Minneapolis:
"Redistribution, as Okun posited, may be a direct drag on the economy. But the reduction in inequality provided a boost that was as large or larger."
The supply-side idea was that handing more money to people who already have a *lot* of money would cause them to use the money to create jobs. We tried it, even though it was a crazy idea, and now we know that it didn’t work. The Sanders idea is that we *take* money from people who have a lot of money and we use it to create jobs, for example on big infrastructure projects like roads and bridges. You know, kinda like FDR.