Krugman nails it. No other columnist has been on top of health care like the Nobel Prize-winning New York Times writer.
In the piece, he makes a compelling argument that passing health care reform is the fiscally responsible thing to do and that politicians opposing it, fearing, I suppose, losing millions in campaign contributions/bribes from the insurance industry, are deluded when they believe reform is financially irresponsible.
He writes: "That's why anyone who is truly concerned about fiscal policy should be anxious to see health reform succeed. If it fails, the demagogues will have won, and we probably won't deal with our biggest fiscal problem until we're forced into action by a nasty debt crisis.
"So to the centrists still sitting on the fence over health reform: If you care about fiscal responsibility, you better be afraid of what will happen if reform fails."
Read it here.
U-N-C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L. There, I spelled it out for you!
Come on Mike, find the part of the Constitution that makes this legal. It doesn't matter if it makes financial sense or not. For the record, I believe Krugman is wrong - name me one government program that hasn't wound up costing more than it was "supposed" to cost.
His article draws on the assertion that "this is our last, best chance to deal with these costs in a rational way." Really? This is it? We get no more chances, ever? Or is this just the government's last chance for another power grab? Other health care reform has been largely ignored - Representative Ron Paul specifically has introduced several measures to the U.S. House that would effectively and without government takeover lead to lower costs and more freedom for the American people.
Krugman is, regardless of how many awards he has won, sadly mistaken when it comes to the benefits of government-run health care.