From the Milwaukee debate (my bolding):
• After Mr. Sanders spoke of a government’s “moral responsibility” to play a major role, Mrs. Clinton said it was time to “level with the American people.” She suggested that Mr. Sanders would significantly expand the scope of government, and she questioned his health care proposals. “It would probably increase the size of the federal government by about 40 percent,” she said, citing one estimate.
It turns out Clinton was way off. Apparently it’s more like 50%:
The increase could exceed 50 percent, some experts suggest, based on an analysis by a respected health economist that Mr. Sanders’s single-payer health plan could cost twice what the senator, who represents Vermont, asserts, and on critics’ belief that his economic assumptions are overly optimistic.
To be fair, Sanders disputes these numbers…
But it’s difficult to see how he thinks he can fund some current targeted health care programs with $0 (from second link):
A table in his economic adviser’s analysis shows that all public spending currently going to military, veterans’, American Indian and other health programs would be part of the financing for his single-payer plan, yet Mr. Gunnels said veterans’ and American Indian health programs would remain intact. That suggests double-counting, or financing the existing programs while claiming the sums to offset the single-payer plan. He did not address military benefits in an email exchange.
But what is to worry about? According to Sanders, his proposals would lead to 5.3% economic growth:
While calling Mr. Friedman’s work a good effort, Mr. Bernstein cited several assumptions as “wishful thinking.” Among them were minimal health-cost inflation, economic growth reaching 5.3 percent and, in that heated-up economy, no action from the Federal Reserve to apply brakes.
Sure, just 5.3% economic growth. No problem, right?
Anyone remember when Jeb promised 4% growth and everyone laughed? Yeah, probably for good reason.
The country would need a turbocharge to rev up to that level. To find a period when the U.S. routinely grew at that pace you have to as far back as the 1950s and 1960s. More recently, the economy grew at 4% in 2000, right before the dot-com bubble burst.
_________________________________________________
So is Bernie just bad at math, double-counting funds, and using wildly optimistic economic projections? Because, any way you slice it, there are some problems with this plan. Can even Bernie supporters acknowledge that double counting funds is either dishonest, or at least sloppy? Or do the facts just not matter, because Bern?
