They want “economic sense” but do they make any?

An op-ed piece by Paul Krugman seems to indicate they the Blue Dogs do not make any sense…

Mr. Krugman states:

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

Mr. Krugman seems to state that all of the Blue Dogs are hypocrites… He does state that “maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites…”

Perhaps they MAY be hypocrites. Perhaps Mr. Krugman is being disingenuous…

What?

How can Mr. Krugman, a nobel prize winner, not be transparent when his work is described as

A hallmark of Krugman’s work is parsimony. His models are among the most elegant: lean and thin and transparent. They have all the required parts but no unnecessary fat.

Questions for the good Nobel Prize winner…

Even Nobel prize winners have opinions, and, sometimes, they don’t support transparency…

Let me see…

Wouldn’t you want variety in options rather than parties being forced into a plan?

Secondly, can a company now create an insurance option that cuts costs, improves care, and provides an option for those seeking health care IF the proposed health care legislation passes?

As follow-ups, where is the transparency in the proposed legislation? What is covered? When is treatment guaranteed and when will I have to wait for treatment? How long will I have to wait? Do we have any estimates for any of these costs, waiting times, or treatment coverages?

If not, why would you and how do you support the legislation?

Summary

We can’t just support “a good idea.” Rather, we should support an idea that has been vetted. Why are people for Obama’s governmental posts well-vetted, even taking a long time to be appointed, while legislation is “pushed through” the legislative process without discussion?