Open borders negate any and all discussions, claims or assertions from Democrats about how they'll pay for any of their lofty goals, except the obvious, by continually raising taxes on everyone who is known to the IRS.
Let's make it simple: If you have an open house and you don't ask people to bring something, then you have to plan to feed and entertain an unknown number of people. How do you do it? Most people give themselves a budget and spend that much and when they run out, they run out. Perhaps they'll look for volunteers to run to the store and pay for additional provisions, but that's just more spending, that's not budgeting. Perhaps they'll scrimp on what they serve and limit it to chips and beverages, if they're anticipating a crowd, but that too has an end, it will run out, faster with more people, slower with fewer.
So how the heck are media entertaining the fallacy of Democratic candidate claims that they will have open borders AND that they'll pay for all the benefits for the countless "all" by doing such and such. It's nonsense.
If you have open borders and you're going to give everyone rights to public money or health insurance, it's impossible for Democrats to explain away how they'll pay for ANYTHING for an UNKNOWN and UNKNOWABLE group of people. So let's get the media on the math boat…You can't say how you'll pay for something for an unknown number of people unless you are allotting a certain total amount that you're putting aside for a program and then when it's gone, the program ends.
Though Obamacare is a deeply flawed law, even President Obama was aware of this math. While transparency is hardly a word associated with Obamacare, from its timing provisions, with the provisions that would make consumers unhappiest scheduled for after Obama's re-election in 2012, to its anti-consumer provisions, including the individual mandate, a product of the insurance company lobbyist AHIP in 2008, in an unholy alliance between government and private business whereby Obama could declare victory for getting pre-existing conditions covered and insurance companies would get a governmentally mandated customer base, "Buy our product or pay an extra tax," to the extensive involvement and administrative powers granted to the IRS, Obamacare was a back-door effort to get illegal immigrants on the government radar.
So bedazzled and confused were consumers that to date, we continue to fail to notice that the Affordable Care Act was designed as another means of addressing the illegal immigration problem that plagued Obama by creating a new avenue for getting people registered and known to the US government. See " Immigration Status and the Marketplace," (https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/immigration-status/).
While people are fond of shorthanding Obamacare as only available to US citizens, it was and is not. In fact, there's entire categories of individuals who can obtain Obamacare after submitting documentation. The healthcare.gov page also reminds enrollees that the information will not be used for immigration enforcement.
So there's a central style of Obama's strategy and back-door registration requirements for enrollees in order to get them known to the US government and the IRS. This actually, is not a bad idea, but in practice would likely be as ineffective as Obama's other attempts at illegal immigration registration in exchange for basically, amnesty.
The first problem is that Obamacare failed to enforce its own rules. We found that even Obama's government for two years following the 2014 provisions was still authorizing payments for non-existent or ineligible individuals and that the government answer was "forgiveness" for all those fraudsters upon whom it had spent money.
The second problem is that the extensive paperwork involved presented a barrier to many applicants, and the fact that oftentimes applications for coverage were approved only to result in endless bothersome demands for additional forms for continued coverage that often were not followed-up on by public employees who merely continued resending the mail rather than addressing individual applicant issues.
These false starts and discontinued policies were partially responsible for the large fluctuation in numbers we receive every year about the number of Obamacare enrollees.
The third problem is that the amnesty aspects of the law were kept from consumers, many of whom would likely not have supported the provisions, the reason why the statements about Obamacare emphasized it was for US citizens only. These deceptions, one of many when considering the differences between what the Affordable Care Act provides for and what was publicized were necessary to pursue the Obama Administration's roundabout registration goals.
The fourth problem is that like DACA, many illegal immigrants for one reason or another defy the registration goals of the law and do not partake in the "opportunity." At its best, DACA is estimated to have gotten several hundred thousand less than even a million illegal immigrants registered. Obamacare, which has since its inception been plagued by under-participation compared to the hyperbole of how many people would participate, would likely be the same. As a matter of fact, every year the numbers have hovered between 8-ish and 11+ ish million for enrollment in exchange plans, higher numbers only boosted by the near-free health insurance and medical services offered by expanded Medicaid.
As today's Dems try to push for no borders, they should consider that ANY of their projected numbers about public spending and health insurance are necessarily VOID if in fact they succeed in making our borders a completely open free-for-all. There is NO WAY to calculate costs of a program, tax increases necessary to maintain a program or other ways of paying for a program if there is a free-for-all at the borders. It is comparative to our open house above.
This is why Obama back-doored incentives to get illegal immigrants registered, on the IRS lists to begin counting them for taxes, liabilities in exchange for the privileges of being in the US, including participating in Obamacare and completely sidetracking the "citizenship" question.
But today's Democrats are not even that slick. They simply throw out and throw up numbers that cannot make sense if you have NO IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE USING A PARTICULAR PROGRAM. Even the silliest Democrat should know that you can't explain how you'll pay for a benefit for an indeterminate number of beneficiaries. It's still a finite number of dollars, the pie still has to be split, and you can't split a pie without knowing how many pieces you're splitting it into.
UNLESS…that's right, you continually add more money to the pot, (sending people out to purchase more for your open house guests above or paying for it yourself, which amounts to more TAXES into infinity) or UNLESS you provide for a cap on the number of people you'll allow (FIRST HOWEVER MANY AND TURN THE REST AWAY) or unless you scrimp on what you serve to make it last longer (the chips and beverage option which still runs out).
So, we've just saved ourselves a lot of time. There is no possibility of an honest, reasonable or accurate response by a Democrat to "How will you pay for it?" if you don't know how many you're paying for UNLESS there are, as also exist in Obamacare, LIMITS on how much can be spent in total.
So whether its Obamacare's death panels or other Medicare's deficit-reduction plans, including the infamous 'death panel,' the Independent Payment Advisory Board that has not become active yet, that trigger cuts in Medicare if its expenses rise too much, there has NEVER been a notion of an ENDLESS pie for an ENDLESS number of people without making known taxpayers pay for it.
For this reason, Democrats should be asked, HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN THIS PLAN COVER WITHOUT SCRIMPING ON COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS OR BY REDUCING THAT COVERAGE TO MERELY SERVICE-AGREEMENT WELLNESS PLANS (eg checkups) AND FOR HOW LONG?" rather than the impossible to answer, "How will you pay for it?" question.
