Paul Krugman accuses>/a> Paul Ryan of perpetuating of "con game" with "Ryanomics." 

As opposed to the sort of responsible budgets and fiscal future being foisted on America by the President and his party?

At one time, Prof. Krugman recognized Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme." Now he criticizes and insults anyone who recognizes it Ponzi premise - transfer payments from a large but shrinking group of investors to a much smaller but growing group of recipients.

What is Obamanomics but a con game that we can tax the rich to prosperity? The only way America can become more like Sweden, Prof Krugman's idea of a fair and just society, is to tax the middle class at substantially higher rates. You would think that an Ivy League econ professor and Nobel prize winner would be able to DO THE MATH that proves this incontrovertible truth.

No wonder he reminds me so much of Carmen Ghia from "The Producers."

It's a movie about a couple bumbling shysters who raise millions more to produce a play than it costs and then do everything they can to make sure its a failure. Sounds like Obamacare to me. A program designed to fail by liberals and to be replaced by their dream of a single-payer healthcare system.

As con games go, brilliant! As a good direction for the country to go - not so much.

UPDATE: From Theodore Dalrymple's excellent "Universal Mediocrity" about the British Healthcare system...

Doctors are less and less members of a profession; instead, they are production workers under strict bureaucratic control, paid not so much by result as by degree of conformity to directives.

This can happen under any system with third-party payment: it is an old observation that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But to have only one paymaster is to compound the problem, to make sure that there is only one tune. Therefore, even when the paymaster gets something right, an intangible harm is done.

And often, of course, unique paymasters do not get things right, since they have little incentive to do so, if not positive incentives not to do so. For example, the NHS recently abandoned its attempt to introduce a single database containing the entire population’s medical records—after $20 billion had been spent on the project. There is absolutely nothing to show for the money, except possibly a number of new information-technology millionaires. Historians will later sift through the records to decide whether incompetence or corruption was more to blame.