Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Because when taxes are cut the revenue to our government increases.
That is not now, nor has it ever been, true. That, my friend, is what is called "fraud". It is fraud of long and storied history. Have you ever heard of the "Laffer curve" (which I refer to as the "laughable curve")? We have been at the low end of that "curve" for nearly all of our national history, so it has never been functionally accurate. At best, a tax cut will return about 28% in revenues. Even the tax foundation, a rah- rah proponent of tax cuts, acknowledges that "[the TCJA] will reduce federal revenues by $1.47 trillion on a conventional basis and $448 billion on a dynamic basis over the 10-year budget window."

Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our government cannot create wealth, it can only tax it. Again, laughably untrue.
Do you know how treasuries work? Where does a government treasury get the money that is in it? By taxing people. A government's treasury is not and does not create wealth. A government's treasury is a repository for the wealth that has been collected through taxes.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our government doesn't have the revenue to fund Medicare so the idea of a tax funded healthcare system has already been proven to be a solution that does not work! How many times does that FACT have to be repeated before people understand it?
Whether you like it or not NW Ponderer it is a fact.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Repeating something that is demonstrably false does not make it "a fact", no matter how often you make the same claim. That only works in "conservaworld."
Here is the proof that our government does not have, nor will it ever have, the revenue to fund Medicare in its current state much less extend it to everyone. Where is the $79,000,000,000,000 to pay for Medicare as it currently is going to come from?
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The reason the cost of healthcare is too high is due to many factors. The primary factor is government interference in the private sector with a wage freeze shortly after WWII. Expecting our government to fix a problem it created is like expecting that no one will ever tell a lie again.
It would be nice if you did some research NW Ponderer.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Again, a repetitive fantasy based upon a falsehood. I'd ask where you get these bizarre ideas, but I don't really care.

No it is not a fantasy based on a falsehood. But then since you just state your opinion and expect it to be accepted as fact you wouldn't know that. (I was a little bit mistaken about the wage freeze. It happened during WWII not after it.)
"The Revenue Act of 1942 triggered another rush to enroll employees in health plans. By slapping corporations with tax rates of 80 or even up to 90 percent on any profits in excess of prewar revenue, Congress all but guaranteed a frenzied search for loopholes. Employee benefits, according to the new law, could be deducted from profits. As an anonymous employer observed in a study published on trends in health insurance, "it was a case of paying the money for insurance for their employees or to Uncle Sam in taxes."

In 1943, two rulings helped accelerate the movement toward employer-sponsored health insurance. The first was a directive by the Internal Revenue Service that employees did not have to pay taxes on premiums paid by their employers. The second was a decision by the National War Labor Board reaffirming the exemption of fringe benefits from the wage freeze."
Our government did create the healthcare problem.
I appreciate your citations. I really do. Would that they actually supported your assertions. First, it is worth noting that the first source is dubious, at best (an opinion piece from the Cato institute). Second, it had zero to do with your assertion (that cutting taxes increases government revenues) or cutting taxes generally, and was almost entirely about cutting spending. It also ignores the horrendous costs to society the austerity programs "lauded" actually wrought. In addition it fails to note either the brevity of Harding's tenure (17 months) nor the egregious scandals, personal and presidential, that he created in that brief period. It is why he is still ranked as one of the worst Presidents in American history, until the current occupant took the crown.

Where do you get those ridiculous Medicare figures from? Certainly not reality. Try some reality-based sourcing: Medicare Budget Basics; CMS: Trustees Report & Trust Funds; CBO- Medicare 2019 Baseline; The Facts on Medicare Spending and Financing (Kaiser). The "Debt Clock.com" source is not even close to reliable, or even rational.

Does Medicare need adjustment? Absolutely. Would universal healthcare reduce actual costs? Again, absolutely. Would taxes go up? Yup. Is it sustainable? Of course it is. I don't intend to be derisive, my friend, but your assertions are so far from rational or coherent that they are hard to take seriously.

With regard to the employer-based health insurance system, however, I agree that it's essentially an accident/condition of history. That being the case, why try to maintain it? Do you recognize what how detrimental it is in international trade?