MEMO: How the ObamaCare Ruling Impacts SD’s House Race

TO:Interested Parties

FROM:Tom Erickson, Kristi for Congress

RE:How the ObamaCare Ruling Impacts SD’s House Race

DATE:June 28, 2012

——————————

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the President’s healthcare law is constitutional. In response to this news, Matt Varilek issued a disingenuous statement in which he claimed that the issue of ObamaCare “is behind us”:

“Now that the uncertainty over the Supreme Court decision is behind us, we can all focus once again on strengthening the economy and on further efforts to improve health coverage, care, and cost-containment.

“While the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, it is a step forward for millions of young people who now have insurance coverage, for people whom big insurance prefer to exclude because of pre-existing conditions, and seniors struggling with high prescription drug costs, just to name a few. I believe members of Congress should now put partisanship aside and come together to bring down costs, and that’s where my focus will be.”  (David Montgomery, “Noem v. Varilek on PPACA,” Argus Leaders’ Political Smokeout, June 28, 2012)

Rest assured, the battle over the government takeover of healthcare is far from over, no matter what Mr. Varilek has to say about it.

Now that the court has upheld a law that only one-third of Americans support, it is an absolute certainty that the debate over repealing and replacing this law will take center stage in this fall’s campaign, just as it did two years ago.

As some of you know, Mr. Varilek hasn’t been shy about his opposition to repealing the wildly unpopular law and replacing it with commonsense alternatives. On his campaign website, Mr. Varilek argues that repealing this bill would be a step in the wrong direction.

Not only has Kristi’s opponent said he won’t repeal the law, he also said he would’ve voted for the bill if he had been in Congress – a position that not even former Rep. Herseth Sandlin was bold enough to take:

“That’s why I’m not afraid to say that I would have joined my former boss, Senator Tim Johnson, in voting for health care reform.  That may lose me some votes, but the fact is that’s what I believe.”  (Source: Matt for SD campaign email, “Where I stand,” Dec. 16 2011)

By saying he would’ve voted for the bill, Mr. Varilek has taken ownership of all aspects of the law, especially those that violate his own campaign pledges.

With the court ruling that the individual mandate is a tax, Mr. Varilek is at odds with his campaign promise to oppose new taxes on the middle class. As many of you know, this is a talking point that Varilek frequently uses – one that he would be wise to drop lest he wants to make a habit of lying to South Dakotans.

It is also worth noting that Democrats paid for this law by cutting half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Varilek once again finds himself in a pickle as he tries to falsely attack Kristi Noem for “ending Medicare as we know it” while at the same time supporting a law that cuts $500 billion from the senior safety net.

As the campaign heats up this summer, you can be certain you’ll hear more and more about the President’s healthcare law. But the next time Mr. Varilek tries to tell you this issue is behind us or that the law isn’t perfect, just remember one thing: this is a law that Varilek himself said he would have voted for.

###

Read more at Kristi Noem for Congress