With >20% of GDP devoted to health care, there is very little room for long term jobs growth. It is hard to be competitive in the global economy with that kind of "tax" burden on any manufactring or service sector output; specially if that tax is on top of relatively high salaries (compared to the rest of the world)
Thus, the only job creation that can happen is via outputs that cannot be outsourced easily ~ firefighters, nurses, school teachers etc., and wherein skilled professional cannot be imported.
Personally, I am a big fan of her...based on the 15 minutes of fame she had. I never bothered to dig any deeper than that, preferring to think that there are at least some politicians who will do the right thing regardless of their personal consequences.
(a) can call an annual increase of 6% a reduction. I hope you are smart enough to see through the shill you are peddling. But, just in case you are not, I will spell it out for you. The mortgage equivalent would be if my mortgage rates increase from the 5% (current) to 5.3% next year, and 5.618% the year after that, and so on... and you would expect me to consider that a savings.
(b) The current spending on health care is $13k/yr. It will go up to 20k/yr, assuming the plan works out... most sane people would call that a net increase of 7k/yr. You call that a savings of 2k/yr... hey, you are also entitled to believe in the tooth fairy.
(a) you are proudly citing an article that suggests that health care expenses would continue to rise by 6% a year, if the proposed reforms are passed and everything works out, from the current value of 0.16*GDP. Not sure if you see the irony here.
(b) this paper makes several questionable assumptions to arrive at the potential savings. Number one being $1600/newly insured person. Number two being the elimination of the mythical wastefraudandabuse that every politician promises to eliminate.
(c) Given a choice between Cutler/Davis and the CBO/CMS, I will go by the CBO/CMS estimates. And, as their chart #4 illustrates ~ their estimates are about $300B more optimistic than the CBO
(d) Even under these optimistic assumptions, they are forecasting annual premiums of $20k/yr in 2019
I am sorry...which part was I supposed to be impressed by ?