I submit that you are correct about Zimbabwe-style confiscation policies being disastrous for an economy.
Aside from the other points <i>....the economy would be further harmed by a massive inflation fueled by all that excess cash chasing the same number of consumer goods.</i><p>But at the same time it's true that the degree of distinction between rich and poor at the moment is <i>still</i> highly detrimental to American society as contrasted to either contemporary Scandinavia or American in 1955. Indeed, it's extremes like present American wealth disproportionalities that can make Zimbabwean confiscation seem more appealing to the majority regardless of one might rationally argue with them (one can look at Latin America for a lot of example here).<p>Just as much, I'd mention that there have umpteen versions of health care reform in the <i>debate</i> and they cannot <i>all</i> be mechanically compared to simplistic confiscation. Further consider that neither the US public education system nor the US highway system have not been economic disasters for the US and the British NHS provide health far more cheaply than the US health care non-system provides.<p>That said, I would admit that the particular compromise <i>bill</i> that has come out of Congress is pretty much a statist disaster in the making (though hopefully now in the unmaking).<p>Also, it's worth noting that America's current private-public system is more or less the worst of both worlds. The majority of private companies aren't innovators but parasites on government funding while the government doesn't have the mandate to directly distribute any goods. Either pure free enterprise or state health care could be an improvement IF either could start from a clean slate - but naturally that won't happen regardless.