Right, but the issue isn't the viability within the discourse, it's the larger macroeconomic forces at play. The US has failed to breach more than 3% growth while the 30% of GDP is public spending, most of which is funneled into health insurance and big pharma to keep these firms profitable. That being said, the financial sector of the US constitutes 40% of its GDP, and those speculative markets are based on the assumed long-term stability of these debt-based markets and heavy administrative/bureaucratic load associated with billing. If you were to nationalize healthcare and wipe student/medical debt, this would trigger a cascading effect since healthcare alone accts for 20% of the US's total GDP. Since Big Tech is also based on the idea that endless profits can be realized from datamining consumer spending habits (many startups worth billions have never turned a profit), a strong hit in professional managerial class aggregate demand, which constitutes the majority of US consumerism, from de-bureacratization of these sectors of the capitalist economy would then kill the viability of Big Tech. Similar effects would occur with the war economy, which is why the Lincoln Project has been shilling for a war with Russia/Iran/VZ, to stimulate GDP growth one last time before capitalism's collapse.

What I'm saying is that although these ideas are popular now, restructuring the US economy to fit them would require such drastic change that we might as well estabish a fully socialist state, as it would take around the same amount of effort. Nontheless, Bernie primed the population for this. BLM's goals are essentially his policies, but proletarian instead of socialdemocratic.