KRUGMAN: "a simple, straightforward single-payer system just isn’t going to happen"

[Chathamization]

109. Krugman's been pretty incoherent on this issue for a while

Back in '09 he was talking about what a mess the ACA would be without the public option. And it is a mess - much better than what we had before, but still pretty bad in a lot of ways. For Krugman to say that it more or less achieves the progress goal on healthcare (rather than it being a step in the right direction) is to not only go against progressive ideals, but to go against what had been his own views just a few years ago. Worth noting that In 2012 he was calling the ACA "a flawed route to universal coverage."

It's also worth noting that in the article linked to above, Krugman mocked the idea that there weren't enough votes for the public option ("the essentially circular political arguments — centrist Democrats insisting that the public option must be dropped to get the votes of centrist Democrats&quot , but now mocks people on the Left who complain that Obamacare relies on health insurance companies by saying that the ACA was the only politically feasible option.

So, it's silly for us on the Left to complain about the ACA, because we just couldn't get that public option when we had control of the Senate and the House. Now, Krugman tells us we shouldn't focus on distractions but on things that are achievable like...getting back the public option? (Krugman: "they should seek incremental change on health care (Bring back the public option!)&quot .

The problem is that Sanders' plan assumes that large savings will come from single-payer - wait, in the Rolling Stone article above Krugman said that single-payer would cover more people at a cheaper price. Eh.

But it's not going to pass, so why talk about it? It's a distraction. Except that Krugman also said that though the Progressive Caucus budget wasn't going to pass, he would be remiss if he didn't call attention to it and thought that the media should pay more attention to it as well.

I like Krugman in general, but it feels like he's a bit all over the place on this issue. It's also easy to call this a distraction when you're sitting happily with your employer provided insurance and don't have to go through the bureaucratic nightmare of the exchanges like the plebes do ("I don't have to deal with this, but I'm sure it's good enough for you folk" feels a lot like wealthsplanin').