Now, I will say that some of what he says is useful, at least if one is moved by the delusion that the Republicans actually have a decent answer in this healthcare debate. Krugman notes that
...(Republicans) have a problem: Obamacare is very much like the Massachusetts health reform, which was not only implemented by a Republican governor, but by a governor who is a serious contender for the 2012 presidential nomination.Unfortunately, he quickly breaks from reality with the following statement:
So they insist that the two plans have nothing in common — but the only real difference they can point to is that Massachusetts didn’t fund its plan in part out of Medicare savings.
Of course, it couldn’t. But think about this a bit more: Republicans are saying that what makes Obamacare a socialist takeover, whereas Romneycare wasn’t, is the fact that unlike Romney’s plan, Obama’s plan cuts government spending.
Uh, does Krugman really believe that this plan is going to provide any Medicare "savings" at all? Or that the Obama monstrosity "cuts government spending"? Now, Krugman was all over the proposals from the Bush administration that promised fictitious results, but now that his candidate is in the Oval Office, suddenly the nonsense that is ObamaCare presents the truth and only but the truth.
Anyone who claims that price controls are going to "cut" government spending is not an economist, as real economists understand the price system, how it works, and what happens when government intervenes into market exchanges. That someone of Krugman's stature would spend his political capital on a bogus mess called ObamaCare tells me that the guy is a political operative and nothing else.