Just for the record, that economic recovery was marred by increased Republican deficit spending (though not as bad as the Carter administration engaged in) as well as an expanding trade deficit which they, along with the Democrats, oversaw.
More worrisome, is the article's authors asserting that if we simply redid what Ronald and Bill did again regarding their domestic economic reforms we would see the same result. They should know better. Between 1981 and today the earth has flattened considerably. At the least what would be required to get anywhere near the same result would require renegotiating all those trade agreements back to our interest so manufacturing and industry could happen here once again. Otherwise all you have done is make it easier for the investors, bankers, and corporate officers to get richer without actually hiring more American workers in material numbers. That's why it wouldn't have the effect it did back when we used to make things here. The authors make false correlations assuming that small businesses will prosper and all of the results will be the same and they won't. The people that were hired to innovate and build the products fed those small businesses and they won't be around this time to feed a recovery. All of the dependencies are off. It's a fallacy that won't remake the U.S. Economy and tens of millions of poor uninsured/underinsured unemployed/underemployed citizens will continue to go without the healthcare they need just as they do now. Even if you made all of the adjustments necessary, such as creating an environment where people innovate and build things here again rather than overseas, millions upon millions would still be uninsured/underinsured. Just not as many. Problem not solved.
We've already addressed why simply removing malpractice suits won't cause most unemployed uninsured people to get the healthcare they need and we've also looked at why Mass system is not a model for ObamaCare despite conservatives lying that it is because it benefits them politically to perpetuate that myth and why so.
The result of doing all of the author's recommendations would make things somewhat better than they are (some trickle down would occur) but would not have anywhere near the impact they think it would and is not good enough. Tens of millions in this country would continue to suffer and die unnecessarily.
However, while no substitute for a good government run medical care program that controls costs and ensures everyone has access, modifying the author's original proposition so it becomes realistic and workable (beyond simply giving rich people a way to make more money off the backs of Chinese and Latino slave laborers and doctors more profit without doing anything other than what they are doing) would benefit our economy and provide another stream of income to pay for the health care.