Sen. Rand Paul: Pres. Obama 'mysteriously' moved back the ObamaCare enrollment period

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," April 4, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Right now, Republican Senator Rand Paul joins us, to go on the record. Nice to see you, sir.

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY: Thanks to you.

VAN SUSTEREN: President says 7.1, he's quite happy with those numbers, at least he seems to be -- 7.1 for Obamacare is that something to be pleased about?

PAUL: We know that the question is 80 percent of them are being subsidies by those who are working. So, in my state, it's the same way. Everybody is getting healthcare but it's either free or subsidized. You know, some of the bill is going to come due at some point in time. And more of the way the bill comes due is to rising premiums. You know, I think people are going to pay more for their insurance.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, even though Chuck Burrell, Chief Executive Officer of CareFirst, Blue Cross Blue Shield says, its likely premium rate shocks are coming. And so, that -- I mean, 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, but he has changed the enrollment period till like November 15th to December 1, after the election. So, I think 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 getting free or subsidized sticker shock isn't going to be such a shock to them.

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is even worse than that 80 percent are getting Medicaid completely free. The other 20 percent of 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. It's the taxpayers that have sticker shock at some point. Where does this come from?

PAUL: Yeah. Right. And you see, that's where the problem is. Our governor goes around. It's a big ally of the President. He goes around saying 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's really comes from the taxpayer. So.

VAN SUSTEREN: So, were we -- does it mean we are they going to get it in the tax code? Are they going to raise income taxes?

PAUL: 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 goal 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: So, 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 healthcare 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.


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's 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 are in the middle class, are we better off or worse? I mean, there are a lot of unknown repercussions to taking over so much of the economy and really for a few million people. That if -- they would have just expanded Medicaid we would done better than all the stuff we are doing.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I Think of the 600 or 6- or $700 million that we spent just on creating this, we might have done more good helping people who didn't have insurance and paying for it getting them free insurance. Maybe, I don't know. I don't know what the numbers are, but anyway. senator, nice to see you, sir.

PAUL: Thanks for having me.