Paul: Obama Is Trying to Hide ObamaCare's 'Sticker Shock' Until After November
VAN SUSTEREN: "The president said 7.1. He's quite happy with those numbers, at least he seemed to be. 7.1 for ObamaCare. Is that something to be pleased about?"
PAUL: "Well you know, the big question is, 80 percent of those are being subsidized by those who are working. So in my state it's the same way. Everybody is getting healthcare it's all either free or subsidized. You know, the bill is going to come due at some point in time. One of the way the bill comes due is to rising premiums. You know, I think people are going to pay more for it their insurance."
VAN SUSTEREN: "It's interesting, even Chet Burrell, chief officer for Blue Cross-Blue Shield says it's likely premium rate shocks are coming. And so that -- they are warning us, the insurance companies."
PAUL: "Even the president, I think, is anticipating this because the president has moved back the enrollment period, mysteriously, I don't know why, he has changed the enrollment period from like November 15th to December 1, after the election. So they are hoping that the sticker shock and the turmoil that's going to happen when people see their insurance premiums going up dramatically -- they want to wait until after the election. I think that's dishonest."
VAN SUSTEREN: "But in your state if 80 percent are are getting free or subsidized, sticker shock isn't going to be such a shock to them."
PAUL: "Well the interesting thing, it's even worse than that: 80 percent are getting Medicaid completely free. The other 20 percent are getting subsidized. Almost nobody in my state signed up to pay for insurance. Almost everybody signed up for either free or subsidized insurance."
VAN SUSTEREN: "All right, so the 80 percent aren't going to have sticker shock. But it's the taxpayers that have sticker shock at some point? Or where does this come from?"
PAUL: "That's really what the problem is. See, our governor goes around -- is he a big ally of the president -- he goes around saying, 'oh, it's a 15 billion-dollar stimulus for Kentucky.' The money has got to come from somewhere."
VAN SUSTEREN: "Where is it coming from?"
PAUL: "Well, it either comes -- comes from the taxpayer."
VAN SUSTEREN: "But where are we -- does it mean where are they going to get it in the tax code? Are they going to raise income taxes?'
PAUL: "Well this is the whole deceit of the federal government. They won't raise taxes, probably. And they will either borrow it or print the money. But the repercussions are the same. So let's say that your going is to help poor people. You give them free healthcare. Sounds noble. But then by printing up money to pay for it, you raise their prices at the pump, you raise the prices for their food. And so as a currency loses its value they think 'oh I got something for free,' but then it turns out all their other stuff costs more and in the end they say 'gosh, I'm still poor and I'm still struggling because big government really doesn't help poor people."
VAN SUSTEREN: "In the end, are all the people who are uninsured -- or a good portion of them -- are they now going to have insurance, have access to health care even if there is a huge sticker price?"
PAUL: "A lot through Medicaid. And you know, but here is the other rub of that: So like in my state, we're going to increase Medicaid by 50 percent."
VAN SUSTEREN: "5-0?"
PAUL: "Yeah, 50 percent increase of Medicaid in one year. So let's say I'm a hospital in a small town in Kentucky, and I have 40 percent Medicaid now, what if I have 50 percent next year? What does that mean to the bottom line? Can I make a profit and stay in business? So what if a hospital -- which is the biggest employer in a lot of small towns -- goes bankrupt and 100 people lose their jobs who were solidly in the middle class, are we better off or worse? I mean, there are a a lot of unknown repercussions to taking over so much of the economy. And really for a few million people. If they would have just expanded Medicaid weed would been better than all the stuff we're doing."