Both Sen Sanders and Sen Warren are aware of this issue according to their econ teams. I can’t speak for Sen Warren, but I know Sen Sanders intends to take care of displaced workers with retraining and public service transition jobs. Your estimate of how many workers will be displaced is actually a bit low in comparison to theirs. Did you include workers now employed by healthcare providers to navigate the maze of insurance regulations from several companies with multiple plans now required to secure payments?

The current economic impact of those jobs is not as beneficial as one might think, as they add no productivity and are simply part of the cost interjected between providers and consumers of services by insurance. The cost of their transition will not be any more inflationary than is their present salaries. In the long run, redirecting those costs to more productive efforts will be a net benefit to the overall economy, negating much of the need to “pay for” the program with additional taxation.

It needs to be noted that whenever Sen Sanders is challenged with the knee-jerk question of “How will you pay for it?” that plays on the econ ignorance of voters, “as it is intended to do”, his answer always directs attention to the targets that currently add to income inequality with unwarranted wealth accumulation. People that should be taxed more, with or without a single-payer healthcare system. I think America is well past the false economics of trickle-down and is ready to adopt a more progressive tax system, whether they equate that with “paying for” social benefits or simply smart macroeconomics.