What Mike Rowe Has to Say About the National Anthem Protest

[Doomsday101]

Great post. Thanks for sharing.

I may be wrong but doesn't Canada have free healthcare for its citizens? That is what my understanding was.

There is no such thing as free. It is still paid for my tax payers

 

[superonyx]

Great post. Thanks for sharing.

I may be wrong but doesn't Canada have free healthcare for its citizens? That is what my understanding was.

Technically not free but a single payer system. So instead of Aetna, Blue Cross etc administering payments to doctors etc you have the Canadian government doing this. This is how they have managed to control cost in a large way. So when Republicans and corporatist want to tell you it’s a big government takeover of health. Care they are being dishonest. The doctors don’t work for the government in a single payer system. They just have to bill the government for payment. Like our Medicare system which is the most popular health care service in our country btw.

Great Britain has a NHS where all doctors work as government employees. It’s not perfect but still ranks much higher by the World Health Organization than the US system.

The reality is that there has never been a successful free market health care system in the world and there will never be one.

Our insurance companies themselves shouldn’t be vilified. Yes they are a part of the problem because by nature they are capitalistic businesss who’s reason for existing is to maximize profits not take care of you or your family. Businesses are not good or evil...they are businesses and they only exist to make more money for themselves. Where it becomes a problem is when our government (the people) become corrupted by the money of the businesses and no longer regulate them and instead act to represent them and not the government (the people). But insurance companies have failed to control cost of healthcare...even without there profit margins and administrative cost the problem is cost of care.

There are so many examples of single payer or hybrid systems in the world that are working much better than our system. The majority of American both democrat and republican support a single payer system and yet only 1/3 of democratic senators and 0 Republican senators support this system. Ask yourself why that is? Aren’t the senators jobs to represent the people who pay them to go to Washington to serve? Yet they are instead serving the interest of the donor class who they rely on for campaign contributions. They are counting on the voters not paying attention while the corporate media distracts us with Russia, NFL protest, etc...

 

[superonyx]

Capitalists responsibility is to create value which should they think will add to profit/wealth. They have to provide some value to a customer more than the competition. I dont know where and how capitalism is almost always railed against due to "shareholders or stockholders." The vast majority of businesses are partnerships and sole proprietorship. But, yes, innovation is the only tool in true capitalism. When a new good solves a new problem or solves on old problem more efficiently (time and/or money), it wins. If a company/person fails to do that, then they cease doing business or just erode away.

And monopolies are typically created created with help of the government to begin with (US Postal Service, the Bells, etc), but note that even with those monopolies, the private sector always innovates around it at the end because monopolies tend to suffer due to lack of innovation and inefficiency.

I worked at FedEx right out of Business school, do you know USPS contracted FedEx to transport its mail because it was cheaper and more efficient? There are millions of examples like this.



Crony capitalism is is when laws or loopholes are set up to give certain firms an advantage over other firms or restrict competition (the original TV airwave licenses, subsidized farming, tax breaks for movie filming, state insurance regulations where companies cant cross state lines, industry tariffs, NFL stadiums). And yes solar subsidies are the definition of crony capitalism. The word subsidy is de facto a crony capitalistic tool.

And, generally the answer to reduce public corruption, is not to instill more public bureaucracy. And government unchecked is worse than any company can ever be because you can take your business elsewhere, you can't easily escape public corruption.

Another big government win for Cali
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal



Do you shop on Amazon?, do you have no choice? Why are more people not flocking en masse to Sears or JCPennys - because of government force? And for choice, how many brands of cereal do you think there are? How about brands of cars? The US has the most choice of any good or service in the the history of mankind. Capitalism is only about choice, the fact few use it and defelct that blame to the "evil corporation" is just a cop out.



Easy. Cosmetic surgery. Breast implants and lasik are fractions of what they used to be. Aside from that, healthcare is another subsidized system - though due to the inelastic nature of core healthcare (emergencies, etc.) make customers make irrational decisions. And you cant compare the US with other systems until you take into account the holistic defensive medicine (unnecessary tests or overtesting) bring medical tourism into the discussion. Also, I worked in London for a couple of years and everyone in my office paid for supplemental private health insurance as to not have to wait in lines or be rationed if they needed advanced services.


LAUSD, the largest public school system in the country, says hi
http://laschoolreport.com/district-...eases-but-lausd-still-faces-financial-crisis/
and this also doesnt support your claim
http://californiapolicycenter.org/a...schools-and-la-alliance-charter-high-schools/



Norway is opening up its economy to more capitalism and competition as oil demand fades (konkurranseutsettelse). It is a country of 5M people, smaller than Massachusetts.

Sweden has been moving more capitalistic since 1993 after moving from 4th richest country to 14th in 23 years as publis spending was 67% of GDP.

Now the Scando countries have maintained more welfare state than many other areas, but to be competitive, the answer wasn't less capitalism

You are again using a mechanism of creating wealth as a goal when its not. The 1 and only goal of any business is to make money. The ways in which they choose to implement to achieve this goal cannot be taken as the actual goal as you have done twice now.

You say a postal service is a government created monopoly? Is the public library system and the police a government created monopoly now also?
Since everything is better (in your view) with letting the free market control and regulate itself then I assume we shouldn't have a military and should instead have private for profit companies acting as mercenaries. Lets drive down the cost of defense with capitalistic principles....nah.

Our government acts to prevent monopolies not create them. There have been many examples of this over the years. (Comcast time warner merger block, Chrysler Motors bail out, Microsoft).
Without this government intervention you would have 1 company to purchase most of your goods and services. Capitalism eats itself if not regulated. This point has been written about in great detail by many Economist. Just think about it from basic understanding of capitalism. When the primary and most powerful goal of a business is to make more money eventually success after success leads to a scary reality.

You point to us having choices in cereal and other products as an example of how capitalism is only about choice however, non of these products have come to fruition in a pure capitalistic economy since we clearly have government regulations that have prevented pure capitalism. My belief is we wont have as many choices without regulations from the government because you would have larger companies buying out the competition and dominating the market. Our government will not allow this to happen in most cases.

I see you were not able to find an example of a health care system that was free market that has succeeded in the world. You put to an elective procedure niche in this country instead. That's not answering the question or challenge. Its trying to redirect the focus other places. You can certainly compare the US healthcare system to other countries in the world. The points you attempt to bring in as reasons why are not relevant or valid and with all due respect are just noise to avoid answering the question or addresses the fact that our free market health care system is failing and we have been passed by countries with single payer, government ran, or hybrid systems. The data isn't confusing and the reports are out there for all to see.

Also you cherry pick a public school system that has financial problems instead of looking at the entire country and the multiple studies that have been done on Public vs Charter education. The results are not hard to understand or something that we can't compare. Here is one for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...99e43c336ed_story.html?utm_term=.d6a8c621fbe8

The Scandinavian countries are not socialist countries and never have been. They are market economies with stronger social regulations to assure the giants don't eat the little guys at the expense of the citizens.

Btw...good debate. I enjoy it.

 

[zrinkill]

Is it a freedom of speech issue when they are technically on the clock and being paid by their employer?

I mean if I protest it will be when I am off work ......... when these guys are "protesting" they are being paid millions of dollars.

If they really want to protest refuse to play ........ lose that paycheck and show you really care about the issue.

I doubt any of them would.

 

[superonyx]

Is it a freedom of speech issue when they are technically on the clock and being paid by their employer?

I mean if I protest it will be when I am off work ......... when these guys are "protesting" they are being paid millions of dollars.

If they really want to protest refuse to play ........ lose that paycheck and show you really care about the issue.

I doubt any of them would.

I get what you are saying....But then should the national anthem even be played at non international games anyway? Also the players don't technically have a clock so when are they really off work? They are not hourly employees so how do you hold them to a clock? They are contract employees and if they are doing something the person who signs their contract doesn't like then they have the ability to void the contract and release the player. These guys are in the sports entertainment business where part of their job requires them to be accessible to the media or they get fines. (Marshawn Lynch) What if they were not allowed to protest during the national anthem but they started to answer every media question with a protest message? Would that be allowed? Its all a slippery slope.

If Trump wants the players to not protest he should have met with a group of them or had someone from his administration met with some of them to listen to the issue they are protesting. Instead of cursed them and said they should be fired. That type of thing generally doesn't work.

I think having a president try and force patriotism has that **** Germany feel. Plus they are not protesting the national anthem.

 

[zrinkill]

Instead of cursed them and said they should be fired. That type of thing generally doesn't work.

I think having a president try and force patriotism has that **** Germany feel. Plus they are not protesting the national anthem.

Now this I agree with.

 

[JoeKing]

Is it a freedom of speech issue when they are technically on the clock and being paid by their employer?

I mean if I protest it will be when I am off work ......... when these guys are "protesting" they are being paid millions of dollars.

If they really want to protest refuse to play ........ lose that paycheck and show you really care about the issue.

I doubt any of them would.

I totally agree with you but the commish, Roger the Clown has okayed them to protest on company time. I don't like it any more than you do. So if you don't like this protest on the company clock, blame Roger the Clown.

 

[Doomsday101]

Is it a freedom of speech issue when they are technically on the clock and being paid by their employer?

I mean if I protest it will be when I am off work ......... when these guys are "protesting" they are being paid millions of dollars.

If they really want to protest refuse to play ........ lose that paycheck and show you really care about the issue.

I doubt any of them would.

That is why I think if players want to protest then use the day off and in every city that has an NFL team, the players can hold a protest rally. I have no doubt the media will give them the coverage they want. Doing it during the national anthem is not bringing unity it is pissing people off, you do not unify by dividing people. I'm sure most fans would not care or be offended if they hold a rally away from the field but as we see most fans are disgusted by the display that is taking place now. So how is this current display by the player accomplishing anything but disdain?

 

[sbark]

Technically not free but a single payer system. So instead of Aetna, Blue Cross etc administering payments to doctors etc you have the Canadian government doing this. This is how they have managed to control cost in a large way. So when Republicans and corporatist want to tell you it’s a big government takeover of health. Care they are being dishonest. The doctors don’t work for the government in a single payer system. They just have to bill the government for payment. Like our Medicare system which is the most popular health care service in our country btw.

Great Britain has a NHS where all doctors work as government employees. It’s not perfect but still ranks much higher by the World Health Organization than the US system.

The reality is that there has never been a successful free market health care system in the world and there will never be one.

Our insurance companies themselves shouldn’t be vilified. Yes they are a part of the problem because by nature they are capitalistic businesss who’s reason for existing is to maximize profits not take care of you or your family. Businesses are not good or evil...they are businesses and they only exist to make more money for themselves. Where it becomes a problem is when our government (the people) become corrupted by the money of the businesses and no longer regulate them and instead act to represent them and not the government (the people). But insurance companies have failed to control cost of healthcare...even without there profit margins and administrative cost the problem is cost of care.

There are so many examples of single payer or hybrid systems in the world that are working much better than our system. The majority of American both democrat and republican support a single payer system and yet only 1/3 of democratic senators and 0 Republican senators support this system. Ask yourself why that is? Aren’t the senators jobs to represent the people who pay them to go to Washington to serve? Yet they are instead serving the interest of the donor class who they rely on for campaign contributions. They are counting on the voters not paying attention while the corporate media distracts us with Russia, NFL protest, etc...

.....and the only reason Canada and Europe could afford their health systems...is because they poured what should've been used for self defense--into health care. They used our defense / military to subsidize their "free" health care even further...............

 

[Denim Chicken]

They used our defense / military to subsidize their "free" health care even further...........

...Or they don't create situations where absorbent amounts of money are required for defense like the US does. The US could (and should) get by on less than half of what we spend on defense, but wars of aggression cost...

 

[superonyx]

.....and the only reason Canada and Europe could afford their health systems...is because they poured what should've been used for self defense--into health care. They used our defense / military to subsidize their "free" health care even further...............

Interesting perspective. I like it...What if I told you that we are already paying more for health care than any other country in the world per person? So switching to a single payer system doesn't increase the amount we spend in America on health care. In fact health insurance companies have an 18% administrative cost plus profit margins on top of that. So immediately you are reducing the cost of healthcare by 16% (Medicare has a 2% admin cost). The 16% savings alone would more than pay for coverage for everyone in the country who doesn't have insurance plus remove any pre existing conditions ect.
You see if you really think about the argument "How are we going to pay for that?" You would realize that we are already paying more than that will cost. So then the question becomes how are you going to afford to pay less money?


Your point about Canada and Europe not paying for "self defense" is interesting as well. Let me ask you something. Self Defense from who? Who is the bad guys who they need to spend 10 times more defending themselves from?
Do you realize that we do not have an enemy who even has an airplane? Think about that for a minute. We spend more than the next 12 largest countries combined on military and all 12 are considered allies. We have spent an estimated 2-3 trillion dollars in Afghanistan fighting for 17 years against an enemy that has attempted to surrender multiple times. An enemy that doesn't even have a plane. Many of their 'fighters" are fighting in penny loafers with no socks. And apparently we are losing.

 

[Doomsday]

Here is a good example for you. Health care.....Give me 1 example of a free market (capitalistic) healthcare system that has succeeded in the world. Just 1 example please......
And if you could actually come up with one (you cant) then lets compare that system, cost, and outcomes with socialized systems around the world.

Lasik eye surgery is a prime example of the free market doing its job as most insurers don't cover it.

Just a few years ago it was over $3k an eye, but as it became in more demand, there became more competition and the prices have dropped like a brick to less than $500 an eye.

Not to mention that if you don't have insurance and pay cash for doctors, they will charge you 70% less than they charge insurance companies due to all the red tape and extra costs.

I recently broke my ankle and leg and it cost less than $1k paying cash for all my treatments. If I had insurance I would have had to pay 3x that as most insurance plans I could buy carry a e $7400 a year deductible.

 

[sbark]

Interesting perspective. I like it...What if I told you that we are already paying more for health care than any other country in the world per person? So switching to a single payer system doesn't increase the amount we spend in America on health care. In fact health insurance companies have an 18% administrative cost plus profit margins on top of that. So immediately you are reducing the cost of healthcare by 16% (Medicare has a 2% admin cost). The 16% savings alone would more than pay for coverage for everyone in the country who doesn't have insurance plus remove any pre existing conditions ect.
You see if you really think about the argument "How are we going to pay for that?" You would realize that we are already paying more than that will cost. So then the question becomes how are you going to afford to pay less money?


Your point about Canada and Europe not paying for "self defense" is interesting as well. Let me ask you something. Self Defense from who? Who is the bad guys who they need to spend 10 times more defending themselves from?
Do you realize that we do not have an enemy who even has an airplane? Think about that for a minute. We spend more than the next 12 largest countries combined on military and all 12 are considered allies. We have spent an estimated 2-3 trillion dollars in Afghanistan fighting for 17 years against an enemy that has attempted to surrender multiple times. An enemy that doesn't even have a plane. Many of their 'fighters" are fighting in penny loafers with no socks. And apparently we are losing.

I think we'd be surprised as heck as to how many enemies we'd all of a sudden have if we didnt have a military overburdened with a supply of strength..............
****
single payer equals govt...............history tells us its not prudent to give that kind of power to any govt entity, it might be ok for a decade, more........but at some time the power gets used by a Dept/ or Indiv. for whatever reason. We saw it via Lois Lehner with IRS, EPA many times, AG office numerous times....the temptation is a fruit to be plucked.

 

[JoeKing]

I think we'd be surprised as heck as to how many enemies we'd all of a sudden have if we didnt have a military overburdened with a supply of strength..............
****
single payer equals govt...............history tells us its not prudent to give that kind of power to any govt entity, it might be ok for a decade, more........but at some time the power gets used by a Dept/ or Indiv. for whatever reason. We saw it via Lois Lehner with IRS, EPA many times, AG office numerous times....the temptation is a fruit to be plucked.

... and single payer would bankrupt this country.

 

[superonyx]

Lasik eye surgery is a prime example of the free market doing its job as most insurers don't cover it.

Just a few years ago it was over $3k an eye, but as it became in more demand, there became more competition and the prices have dropped like a brick to less than $500 an eye.

Not to mention that if you don't have insurance and pay cash for doctors, they will charge you 70% less than they charge insurance companies due to all the red tape and extra costs.

I recently broke my ankle and leg and it cost less than $1k paying cash for all my treatments. If I had insurance I would have had to pay 3x that as most insurance plans I could buy carry a e $7400 a year deductible.

So we agree then...the insurance model we have in America doesn’t work and doesn’t control cost.
This is why single payer systems work so well.

 

[superonyx]

... and single payer would bankrupt this country.

How would single payer bankrupt the country?
You realize we are actually paying more for healthcare today than we would under a single payer system right? So shaving the 18% admin cost health insurance company’s charge for administration would somehow bankrupt the country? Do you even understand how a single payer system works?

 

[superonyx]

I think we'd be surprised as heck as to how many enemies we'd all of a sudden have if we didnt have a military overburdened with a supply of strength..............
****
single payer equals govt...............history tells us its not prudent to give that kind of power to any govt entity, it might be ok for a decade, more........but at some time the power gets used by a Dept/ or Indiv. for whatever reason. We saw it via Lois Lehner with IRS, EPA many times, AG office numerous times....the temptation is a fruit to be plucked.

So who would be our enemy all of a sudden and why would they become our enemy?
You mean if we didn’t have over 1000 bases running around the world suddenly Rwanda will develop an air force and attack the US? Who then? Panama? Anyone? Who is attacking Russia? They spend a small fraction what we do and no one attacks them?

Single payer equals better outcomes for less money with cost controls. It’s not a new concept. Canada has been using it with great success for the last 40 years.
Please educate yourself on something before speaking to educated people about it.

 

[blindzebra]

You underestimate how many agreed with what Trump said.

Based on the last poll, 44% and falling. There was a 9% drop in disapproval after Trump spoke. So I guess it will eventually hit 34%, like his approval rating.

 

[JoeKing]

How would single payer bankrupt the country?
You realize we are actually paying more for healthcare today than we would under a single payer system right? So shaving the 18% admin cost health insurance company’s charge for administration would somehow bankrupt the country? Do you even understand how a single payer system works?

I'm a veteran and you ask me that? You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[blindzebra]

How would single payer bankrupt the country?
You realize we are actually paying more for healthcare today than we would under a single payer system right? So shaving the 18% admin cost health insurance company’s charge for administration would somehow bankrupt the country? Do you even understand how a single payer system works?

It amazes me just how many people support the Republicans even though everything that they do and stand for only benefits that 1%, they continuously buy the American dream, trickle down nonsense when everything that the Republicans do makes their life worse. We need less government and lower taxes, is their favorite topic and yet no Republican has ever lowered taxes or reduced government. They spend more and more and layer every bill with tons of red tape and loopholes to give big business breaks at the expense of the rest of us.