Ruling Moves Health Care Toward ‘Socialist’ System
By Nick Tate
Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York and a leading critic of Obamacare, said the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the law moves the nation one step closer to a European-styled “socialist” health care system.
McCaughey, author of “The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It,” told Newsmax the high court’s ruling that the individual mandate requiring all Americans to have health insurance or pay a “penalty” is actually a new tax that will fund what is in essence a government-run program.
“It’s [a step toward] a European-style welfare state where the government collects an increasingly large share of your earnings and then spends them providing your benefits, rather than allowing you to make your own decisions about what you need,” said McCaughey.
In an interview, she also accused the White House and Obamacare supporters of misrepresenting the health care law as a benefit and not a tax, suggesting Americans were the victims of “booby trap” legislation.
“The politicians talked about this law as an insurance benefit, not a tax, in terms of the commerce clause. But in fact the language of the law itself made it clear that it was a tax. They’ve [given] the IRS broad new authority to implement this,” said McCaughey, a Newsmax contributor. “Of course, no one read the law so no one really realized that it was a tax.”
In addition, she said Obamacare supporters never used the word “tax” in describing the penalty portion of the law because the constitutionality of a tax can’t be legally challenged until after it’s been imposed and collected, so the states would have to wait until 2014 to file suit and bring the law to the Supreme Court.
“So, in fact the American public is the victim of a booby trap,” she said.
“They have this 2,572-page law that no one’s read and that’s why the public should demand that this be replaced with a 20-page bill in plain honest English that everyone will read before it’s passed. This was deliberate misrepresentation, there’s absolutely no question about it.”
McCaughey also said the ruling doesn’t end the national debate on health care.
“Throughout American history Americans have respectfully, but powerfully rejected the [Supreme] Court’s verdicts and corrected the mistakes made by Congress and the President,” noted McCaughey, a constitutional scholar. “This is not over, of course not. It’s not over.
“The American public should go to the polls in November and speak resoundingly against this law and those who voted for it. They should replace the Congress and then replace the law.”
She also said the ruling could work against President Barak Obama’s re-election hopes, predicting the aspects of the healthcare law that require employers to cover workers’ health insurance, or pay a penalty, will keep many companies from hiring new employees between now and November.
“Good news for Obamacare may be bad news for the president because it is strictly bad news for job seekers,” she said. “Employers have been on the sidelines reluctant to hire because the Obama health law imposes a very costly employer mandate that adds almost $2 per hour to the cost of hiring an employee…so companies have been holding back hoping this law will be struck down…and they’re not hiring.
“So Obama may have won today but he may not be keeping his job after November.”
She also predicted the court’s ruling against the law’s requirement that states expand Medicaid will swell the federal deficit.
“The Medicaid decision is very very very important it was the sleeper issue,” she said. “I wasn’t surprised by that ruling, but that Medicaid ruling will really increase the deficit and the federal debt because …now the federal government has to provide subsidies to millions more people to buy private health plans who otherwise would have been covered under the Medicaid expansion.”