Subscribe to RSS.
Become a Fan on Facebook
Follow on Twitter (Named #1 in US 4 Green)
Subscribe to Free Weekly E-Newsletter
Get on Elephant
Socialist Teams Dominate College Football. Again.
Go Public Option!
Now that it appears the public option for health care has been suffocated by a combination of lobbyists, the lawmakers they fund and crowds shouting about the evils of socialism, I thought perhaps its time to look at some other “socialist” aspects of American life. We’ve all heard the right wing mantra that our government can’t do anything better or more efficiently than the private sector, but few seem to challenge this assertion.
Never mind that millions of Americans drive every day on government-built roads, check out books from government-owned libraries, send their kids to government-run schools and colleges, receive their mail from the U.S. Postal Service and are protected daily by government-run police, fire, and military services…but I digress.
In particular, there is one state-supported “socialist” institution which draws millions of TV viewers, not to mention filling stadiums with as many as 100,000 people every weekend in the fall; college football.
And this year, as in so many in the past, the “socialist” teams once again dominate college football’s top 25 while the national championship game will be played between two venerable “socialist” institutions; the University of Texas and the University of Alabama (the latter known as the Crimson Tide, surely a glaring example of socialist fervor).
In fact, only five of the top 25 BCS teams this season; TCU, BYU, Miami, Stanford and USC, are from the supposedly superior private sector (but pul-lease don’t mention the millions in research grants these schools receive). This begs the question: are those teabaggers sure the government can’t do anything right? And, if they really want to stand on their principles of opposition to socialism, shouldn’t they burn their Colorado Buffaloes and Nebraska Cornhuskers hats and start following Notre Dame or Tulane?
Professional football isn’t much better, with local municipalities levying taxes to build new stadiums with price tags in the hundreds of millions of dollars. What does it say about a country when the same people who reject using public funds to ensure no one goes without health care are the same ones who support taxing its people to build football stadiums? Don’t get me wrong, I like football as much as the next guy but this disconnect is too big to ignore.
Finally, getting back to the health care question. If the private sector is so much better, then why are Medicare’s administrative costs only five percent while private plans’ costs are 13%? Why is it that the one mantra concerned citizens on the left and right both agree on is “Don’t Touch My Medicare?”
So, forgive me if I’m overcome by the irony of a public health care option being dropped just as we enter the college football bowl season, where the “government option” continues to outpace the private one.
So I’ve read this article multiple times—and maybe it’s because I’m not quite sophisticated enough to understand the logic—but I still fail to see the irony. Any irony. First, we’re debating a federal health care system. This article talks about a mishmash of federal, state, and local governments. There’s no hypocrisy in directly VOTING (democracy in action, right?) to subsidize LOCAL professional stadiums while opposing a national healthcare system IMPOSED by Washington representatives. I’m also not sure who would deny that government services (roads, law enforcement, fire and rescue, national defense) are necessary. The government, whether federal, state, or local, has an obligation to protect its citizens. But that’s not socialism. Socialism is when the government controls the means of economic production and the allocation of resources. And if you’d like to play the “state school football is better than private school football,” then wouldn’t it make sense to play the “private education is better than public?” I know my information comes from that Right Wing propaganda tool US News and World Report, but there isn’t a public university ranked in the top 20 in the US. Isn’t that why President Obama sends his daughters to the prestigious (and very expensive) Sidwell Friends instead of a DC public school? Wasn’t it private education (Columbia, Harvard, Princeton) that produced President and Mrs. Obama and public school (University of Idaho) that educated Sarah Palin? Oh, and finally, please don’t use the USPS as an argument for government efficiency. While the Feds have a monopoly on letter service (and people more often choose to send email run by private companies like Yahoo, Google, or MSN), UPS and Fed Ex are the more cost-effective and efficient choices for parcel service. That’s why my cool new Simple Green Toe shoes are arriving by UPS today. By the way, the USPS has reported losses of over $11 billion in three years. UPS and FedEx would be out of business if they averaged just shy of $4 billion in losses every year.
Great article! I never thought about the "socialist injustice" of college football, but now that you have mentioned it, it appears government run colleges tend to produce superior football teams. Who would have thought?
You combined college football with a logical and agreeable health care debate. I might love you a little bit.
So I’ve read this article multiple times—and maybe it’s because I’m not quite sophisticated enough to understand the logic—but I still fail to see the irony. Any irony. First, we’re debating a federal health care system. This article talks about a mishmash of federal, state, and local governments. There’s no hypocrisy in directly VOTING (democracy in action, right?) to subsidize LOCAL professional stadiums while opposing a national healthcare system IMPOSED by Washington representatives. I’m also not sure who would deny that government services (roads, law enforcement, fire and rescue, national defense) are necessary. The government, whether federal, state, or local, has an obligation to protect its citizens. But that’s not socialism. Socialism is when the government controls the means of economic production and the allocation of resources.
And if you’d like to play the “state school football is better than private school football,” then wouldn’t it make sense to play the “private education is better than public?” I know my information comes from that Right Wing propaganda tool US News and World Report, but there isn’t a public university ranked in the top 20 in the US. Isn’t that why President Obama sends his daughters to the prestigious (and very expensive) Sidwell Friends instead of a DC public school? Wasn’t it private education (Columbia, Harvard, Princeton) that produced President and Mrs. Obama and public school (University of Idaho) that educated Sarah Palin? Oh, and finally, please don’t use the USPS as an argument for government efficiency. While the Feds have a monopoly on letter service (and people more often choose to send email run by private companies like Yahoo, Google, or MSN), UPS and Fed Ex are the more cost-effective and efficient choices for parcel service. The USPS has reported losses of over $11 billion in three years. UPS and FedEx would be out of business if they averaged just shy of $4 billion in losses every year.
My comments didn't post right because I usually don't write stuff. I meant to start it with…So I’ve read this article multiple times—and maybe it’s because I’m not quite sophisticated enough to understand the logic—but I still fail to see the irony. Any irony. First, we’re debating a federal health care system. This article talks about a mishmash of federal, state, and local governments. There’s no hypocrisy in directly VOTING (democracy in action, right?) to subsidize LOCAL professional stadiums while opposing a national healthcare system IMPOSED by Washington representatives. I’m also not sure who would deny that government services (roads, law enforcement, fire and rescue, national defense) are necessary. The government, whether federal, state, or local, has an obligation to protect its citizens. But that’s not socialism. Socialism is when the government controls the means of economic production and the allocation of resources.
Do those rankings involve a value for money comparison? Nope. Just like private health care, private colleges cost far more than their state supported equivalents.
Oh, and so why is it Medicare has overhead costs of 5% and private ones have overhead costs of 13%? And if (as the insurance industry wants us to believe) a public option would put private insurance out of business, how is it that Fedex, UPS, DHL, and others manage to survive and thrive with a public option (the USPS) in the same market? By the way, unlike DHL, UPS and Fedex the USPS provides service to every part of the country -including many places the private ones won't touch (so their losses are understandable). Kinda like how those private insurance companies don't have to cover anyone they don't want to… But this is not really a discussion about dollars and cents, its about the values we claim to believe in as a people being misaligned with the values we actually live out.
Again, what does it say about a country when the same people who reject using public funds to ensure no one goes without health care are the same ones who support taxing its people to build football stadiums? Furthermore, what does it say about a country when committing more troops to Afghanistan recieves broad support while a plan to cover 46 million uninsured Americans is fought against so vehemently?
To quote an article in today's Politico; " It is never a good sign when a large domestic program is less popular than a long guerrilla war".
I'm not sure why my comments were cut off. My first half was sent for approval and my second remarks were immediately posted, but it's probably better if half my words are lost in some virtual abyss. Let's just stick to your response, which, of course, makes some good points. See what a little spirited debate can do? Ok, so can we agree that, maybe (just maybe) the state school as heath care analogy might not work that well? You argue that private education costs more than public and I'll agree that, really, you get the same product. But then again, BCS rankings don't account for cost either. Take two of your examples…Alabama and Tulane. I'd be willing to bet that the Green Wave's football budget couldn't come close to affording just one year of $32 million the Crimson Tide pays Nick Saban.
Your second point is a good one. I don't suspect a public option would be the end of private health care, just as you point out that UPS and FedEx have thrived with the USPS around. But still, I don't see how the government can continue to subsidize $4 billion losses every year. The problem with (especially Federal programs) is that they end up costing more than we plan and, at this point our spending is going to catch up with us.
Finally, your point on Afghanistan is well-taken and, I think the more ironic. How can conservatives justify calling for smaller government and the outrageous cost of expansion while giving a blank check to war? Just as ironic is the Nobel Peace Laureate arguing for Augustinian Just War.
That second sentence didn't make sense…How can conservatives justify deriding the cost of health care while giving a blank check to war?
USPS has to by law drive down each and every street in th e US while UPS, Fedex are on an as need basis. USPS is the only some what effective government run enterprise. College football is in the vast majority of cases self funding and helps to fund many of the other sports that colleges offer.
While we're on the topic…The NFL is the epitome of socialism. Help the poor (1st pick of the draft) and try to keep the playing field level (salary cap).
5 star!
I found you by Bing and just wanted to say thank you for the informative scores entry!
I can’t believe that Big Red is joining the Big Ten. The future promises to be esciting. Yowzers