Big Ten Players United Have Issued a Statement
August 5th, 2020 at 12:07 PM ^
The NCAA — which is known for its zeal for regulations and enforcement — has had ample time to prepare for the safe return of its athletes to competition, yet it has done nothing. Its laissez-faire approach is forcing each conference and each school to create its own plan, resulting in inconsistent policies, procedures and protocols.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:12 PM ^
That model seems familiar: Shocking failure of central leadership, leaving regional entities to fend for themselves. And we're seeing, in real time, how well that works.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:14 PM ^
A strong message. You could also replace NCAA with the US government, the athletes with US citizens, and competition with any semblance of normal life.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:26 PM ^
Indeed you could, which goes with my point just below.
It's amazing just how often, and strongly I disagree with words you type.
At least we're consistent! But I confess to hoping that one day you'll maybe agree with me just a little.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, wherever that may be.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:18 PM ^
Unfortunate they chose to use laissez-faire as a snarl word. Even more unfortunate they want central planning from the NCAA.
The NCAA is one of the most corrupt institutions in sports, right up there with FIFA and the IOC. Why would you ever want them to be in control of your health care? It's nuts. Is it some visceral fear reaction to run and seek out authority? Are they being exploited by someone who organized this letter? I can't see any reason why the people who have been most abused by the NCAA would want the NCAA to have even more power over their lives.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:24 PM ^
So they can give the big middle finger to the NCAA when they say no to these requests.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:28 PM ^
Unfortunate they chose to use laissez-faire as a snarl word.
Why would you ever want them to be in control of your health care?
Get this libertarian nonsense out of here. Just an entire political ideology built around pretending your actions don't affect other people.
Players aren't guaranteed healthcare, despite the fact that their participation in a sport can lead to permanant "pre-existing conditions" that a regular insurer could refuse to cover.
What's your solution, if "BUT I DONT WANT THE NCAA INVOLVED" is important to you?
And you'd better give me an answer other than "the freer the market the freer the people," since that's a logical fallacy dressed up like a tautology.
Just an entire political ideology built around pretending your actions don't affect other people.
Possibly one of the most egregiously false statements I've ever read, so kudos for that!
It generally makes it easier to argue on the internet when you avoid nuance.
Not a single word that I've written is false.
Every other fucking developed nation has universal healthcare. The "but do you REALLY want the government providing x" arguments can almost always be answered with "Yeah, governments do that all the time and they're pretty good at it."
do you REALLY want the government responding to emergencies
do you REALLY want the government to pave the roads
do you REALLY want the government to provide parks
do you REALLY want the government
The only people who would say "no" to that last one is pedophiles, and oh hey would ya look at that there's a pedophilic "but what if the child consents" arm to libertarianism huh funny how that works
There are plenty of things the government should not run. Just imagine, for a second, that it is decided that housing and food are an entitlement for all citizens in the same manner as healthcare as you're suggesting it should be run. And soon all of your food and housing are publicly run and funded. I'm sure this would be a downgrade in quality for the vast majority of users here, and almost certainly the majority of Americans nationwide.
This isn't to say that healthcare shouldn't be available to everyone. But to say that all governments who offer it and they all do a good job at it seems a bit naive. If that were true why aren't American doctors looking to go overseas to western Europe where their health care system is so much better?
I’m not suggesting I don’t agree with any of your points or anything, but just wanted to point out that physicians and healthcare workers don’t make the same kind of money around the world in those other economies as they do in the States
That would imply that better doctors would be more likely to go to the US to practice medicine.
Because there are some really good doctors already here? Or maybe the pay is much better for doctors in the U.S...but I guess if it were that simple the doctors over here in England would flock to the U.S.
I don't think doctors are looking to move country simply based on which country has a better health care system for its citizens.
Now..what do the people think? I'm American living in London. I know quite a few others as well. The first time I walked into a doctor and was not immediately asked 'how do you want to pay for this?' was actually when I got sick on vacation in Barcelona (was still living in the U.S.). It was a revelation...I was there on vacation and got free healthcare. I only had to pay a small amount for the prescription. The actual doctors, nurses and care was top notch.
Since living in London same thing. Go to the doctor or hospital get care from highly qualified doctors and nurses and not have to stress over 'how are you going to pay for this?' It is life altering. It is inhumane to ask a person who is ill to even think about 'how are you going to pay?' before they are looked after.
I believe this is one of the reasons the U.S. is struggling with Covid. People have to think twice about going to the doctor for fear of ending up bankrupt whereas in countries with universal health care that thought never enters so people are quick to seek care. And in a pandemic that speed can help catch cases before they've spread as far. This is magnified too by the fact that so many people in the U.S. have lost their jobs and with that their company backed healthcare. You don't have to work for a company, or work at all, to get healthcare when a country has a universal healthcare system.
Just imagine, for a second, that it is decided that housing and food are an entitlement for all citizens in the same manner as healthcare as you're suggesting it should be run.
(Imagines everyone having shelter and food and healthcare)
This sounds awesome. Where do I sign up?
It's always nice when you're having a discussion and someone deliberately misrepresents what you've said and then argues against a fake point they just created.
There should be a word for that.
Some people wear pink on Wednesdays; I don my blathering asshole hat on Wednesdays.
Don't worry, I'll be better tomorrow.
August 5th, 2020 at 10:19 PM ^
I think you're in, more than a bit, over your head on all counts here. My family has never made 100% of its living by farming-though my grandparents and a couple uncles did. Today we live in very rural Kansas-right now we can't see another house from our place...we can in the winter. We are surrounded by wheat, corn and bean fields. My point: You may wish to take a look at the federal farm bill before you begin using food as an example of an industry that is independent of our government. There are books written about this...and the violations of the larger public in this regard is quite astounding-in every direction. From the chemical manufacturing to the food processing giants and equipment and seed production...and on and on-the farm bill is written by these industrial giants to put money in their pocket-at the expense of the viewing public. Our tax dollars subsidize these giants and the money flows directly into their pockets.
Healthcare: You have to be smarter than the red herring silliness you're throwing against the wall. Our immediate family is deeply entrenched in this aspect of American life-beginning with 3 docs and two more youngsters in med school. Your assertions are so egregiously incorrect...I will not even consider attempting to explain this matter. There are reasons-many "good" reasons things are as they are.
You used a lot of big words to say literally nothing of substance.
I thought my comment was respectful. I never said a word against government subsidizing certain services for low income families. I used to be a program administrator for four different federally funded food programs, so I'm well aware of how it works. But since your comment is basically "I know more than you, and more than the average person, and you're so wrong I won't even address it," then I question if you actually know as much as you think you do.
Just imagine, for a second, that it is decided that housing and food are an entitlement for all citizens in the same manner as healthcare as you're suggesting it should be run
Finland LITERALLY ENDED HOMELESSNESS, with no ill effects. It's not even that hard to build enough housing for everyone, we just... don't.
For food, the way it currently sits is food banks get expired food from grocery stores, then have to give that to poor people. The government running that would also be better.
It's funny how quickly the "no politics" rule goes out the window here. I wonder if the real Chuck Norris would agree with you.
Yes, more government everywhere, please do.
I'm pretty sure the real Chuck Norris has never needed a doctor.
Well, you seem to have a very extreme interpretation of libertarianism, which follows the same old lazy misconceptions. I've never met a libertarian who believes there's no role for government, unless you count pure anarchists, who I think we can both agree are...unhelpful.
I'm also not sure why you bring up universal healthcare, as I didn't mention it, but I suppose that's your issue of choice. I was referring to the silly notion that libertarians don't believe their actions affect other people, when in my experience libertarians have a much greater sense for this than most other people. Libertarianism is, first and foremost, a moral philosophy about the use of force. When you live in a society structured by consensual interactions, as a libertarian society would be, you would be acutely aware of how your actions affect others and society as a whole.
You essentially invoke the "libertarians are selfish" argument, which this essay does a far better job debunking than I could. The Oscar Wilde quote is fitting:
“Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people’s lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it.”
In any case, you've clearly made your mind up about it and would like to write off the ~20% of Americans who lean libertarian as sociopaths and, um, pedophiles. So yeah, as I said, kudos to your nuanced argument!
It's an extreme ideology based on principles that are either selfish or naive depending on the adherent. You can spout out words like "freedom" as much as you want (like the author of that essay) but libertarianism exists under extremely naive assumptions that the free market will magically solve the world's problems when the reality is that things are more complex than that. The free market is great for many things and shouldn't be cast aside. It also simply cannot solve many of the world's problems. Rivers were literally catching on fire in the 1970s because they were so polluted by benevolent and self-regulating corporations. Poor elderly people were literally dying in the streets before the implementation of social security. Health insurance companies will never insure poor people or those with very expensive medical conditions out of the goodness of their hearts. These people are a threat to their profits. Extremely powerful fossil fuel companies aren't going to transition to clean energy on their own because it's the right thing to do. They'll do it when it becomes more profitable to do so, which will likely be too late because the effects of their behavior are delayed.
Modern governments with happy people have mixed economies. They recognize that a vibrant free market is an important part of society, but that an active government is needed to address certain issues. We're seeing this right now as a federal government that has rejected all responsibility during a pandemic is leading to a death count that is astronomically higher than what we see in other developed countries.
Yes, I agree with you. Please focus on what I wrote, not what you assume I think. Knee-jerk reactions are tiresome. The question isn't "should we have government," uttered in some caricature of a Cro-Magnon voice. The question is "how much government intervention—in which spheres, and of what type—is necessary and effective." Libertarians have a somewhat different value set when it comes to these decisions. They are not "naive"; on the contrary, they are painfully aware of how political bodies and government institutions generally fare when tasked with things, and of how power-hungry politicians tend to slip into despotism (see: current President). And I've already discussed the "selfishness" charge, which I personally find offensive.
Here's a perfect example, and something I assume we can agree on. Libertarians have been raising the alarm for decades against police brutality, mass incarceration, and the militarization of the police. Meanwhile, one of Biden's top choices for VP was on the frontlines of the wrong side of this not too long ago. Like I said, different value set.
I read the essay and I found the argument that Libertarianism isn't a selfish ideology unconvincing. The quotation you selected asserted, "And unselfishness is letting other people’s lives alone, not interfering with them." This is where I find Libertarians lacking in their ability to see nuance in the world. Someone born into intense poverty with bad local schools and poor nearby public transportation isn't freer in a low-tax system with gutted social safety nets. We shouldn't leave the poor and dispossessed alone and pretend doing so is good for them. Providing them with food and housing assistance isn't "telling them how to live." It's giving them more options regarding how they can live their lives. These things are funded with taxes, which are the big boogeymen of Libertarianism, but which are absolutely essential to the existence of modern society.
I like that Libertarians are "painfully aware of how power-hungry politicians tend to slip into despotism." That's why a system of checks and balances is important. I generally agree with Libertarians on many issues like military interventionism, mass incarceration, and police brutality. However, I find Libertarian solutions to be generally lacking. Deregulating corporations, defunding the government (taxes), and substantially increasing the privatization of public goods and services will create new problems and leave the government neutered in its ability to address real crises.
I do appreciate your willingness to debate the issue in a civil way, unlike some on this board. I'm also keenly aware that this is not the proper venue. Nonetheless, I never said to leave the poor and dispossessed alone—I would argue some social safety nets are a necessary role of government. Again, it's a matter of degrees and structure (e.g. universal basic income is a smart way to do it, top-down micromanaged welfare programs are probably not).
The main problem that I'm reacting to is that many people, especially on the left, have a very narrow and extreme view of libertarianism. Again, I'll point to the Cato study cited above. When 20%+ of the population tends to agree with a basic definition, that's not an "extreme ideology." When 4.5M people vote for the party in a national election, as they did in 2016 (some a reaction to the Republican candidate, no doubt), that's not extreme. Yes, there are extremists on the fringes, as there are everywhere. But agreeing with about half of the left's platform and about half of the right's is not extreme. I think it's wise.
"many people, especially on the left, have a very narrow and extreme view of libertarianism"
Our view of libertarianism is almost completely defined by the libertarians you guys keep electing to federal office and the one who wrote the libertarian bible.
We know how awful people like Mark Meadows, Rand Paul, and Ayn Rand are. If you don't like being judged by them, please, point us to the libertarians who don't pine for the days before labor laws and public assistance.
I would be very careful not to confuse Republicans who may claim to have "libertarian" tendencies with actual libertarians. They're just Republicans. I doubt they have libertarian positions on most social issues, and like all politicians they're just in it for the power. I would point instead to Justin Amash, Gary Johnson, even Jeff Flake. All flawed, but better. You probably have a friend who's secretly libertarian.
And as one of the articles I cited above mentions, Ayn Rand "went out of her way to distance her own philosophy, which she called Objectivism, from libertarianism." Granted, she tends to be a gateway to the philosophy, but there are much better "libertarian bibles" out there, particularly by David Boaz, Harry Browne or Jim Gray.
It's really then that those libertarians vote nearly in lockstep with republicans.
I have a friend who is a very proud libertarian. And he has no explanation when I ask him to explain the difference between pre-Truman Antitrust Act American and his libertarian dream scenario, he can't. You see, we've already tried that bullshit, and it doesn't work. All it is now is a grift for people like Rand Paul and his billionaire Koch backers to convince the working poor that if only the government "got out of the way" they too could be billionaires.
Going full Libertarian would basically be Feudal Europe. People who are already rich have self sustaining castles, poor people work as serfs, the rich fund their own militias and public services in return for servitude. The only people with more freedom would be those who could buy it.
Both Libertarianism and Communism are both ideas that only work in books, or today, posts on the internet. People will always get in the way.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:30 PM ^
Agreed. These movements seem entirely counter-intuitive and self-destructive.
You don't even realize you have the dumbest takes of any poster on mgoblog ever. My god, skippy.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:32 PM ^
that's how health insurance works. the more widespread it is, the more effective it is.
the ncaa is, by nature of its size and scope, the entity that is currently most directly capable of administering anything like a consistent program across multiple schools in multiple states.
I'm assuming you mean that health insurance - almost any insurance - works best with participation large enough for statistical approaches to be valid and effective. That is true, but we're talking about health care, which is different from health insurance.
Health care, like almost any other transaction, works best when the costs and benefits are felt directly by the people involved in the transaction and not by a third party. If health care workers are paid by a third party rather than by the patient, then the quality of care inevitably suffers because the workers are trying to please whoever pays them rather than the patient. This is one of many reasons why you don't want a large organization like the NCAA paying your health care costs for you.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:35 PM ^
Why do you people equate having an organization using their economic influence to pay for health care at a lower rate with "CONTROLLING YOUR HEALTHCARE!!1!!" instead of simply recognizing the benefits of large organizations working for the benefit of the members? It simply astounds me the logical leaps you have to make to get there.
The NCAA isn't going to send a rep to every doctor's appointment and checkup and decide on a course of action. That is still going to be between the student, their medical team, and whomever else the student wants to involve.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:49 PM ^
Maybe they just want the 'NCAA' to layout the minimum guidelines for care, testing, support, and procedures governing how a season can take place? What is wrong with a central organization providing a central set of rules to ensure fair play and fair treatment of athletes across the board?
Please don't try the argument that the NCAA doesn't run school AD's. Because, bullshit. The NCAA provides more rules than any of us have ever wanted regarding how individual schools can play games.
But noooo... You jump straight into some political BS about losing your 'liberties'...
I'm freeee, maaaannnnn, I have RIGHTS!!!
Listen, I'm not going to get into a debate about whatever strain of libertarianism is offended by the term "laissez-faire", but in the country we've created a system of health care that relies heavily on large organizations making it available to people who ostensibly are associated with them. In this case that means the NCAA (via their member schools), and so it makes sense that would be where they start. My guess is the ultimate end would be insurance via the schools the kids are actually attending, but I don't see some more tenable solution right now than getting the NCAA on board.
The NCAA can't control healthcare. The insurance companies have carved up the states and healthcare providers have clustered around hospital networks making healthcare delivery regional, so the only national insurance is Medicare/Medicaid.
But, the NCAA could define standards of coverage and outline the issues that must be addressed surrounding healthcare to protect athletes as they play in a world of COVID-19.
not sure i understand your point here. we do have companies that cross state lines and have common centralized benefits, no? in fact, i work for one. how is that different?
Not only are there large companies which figure this out, there are companies which specialize in doing nothing but this for small companies. You pay them an amount per employee per month, they handle administrative work for things like benefits. This deal winds up better for both the small company and their employees, because health care is cheaper when benefits are spread among the largest possible number of people.
i think the benefits might be the same as far as the employee is concerned, but typically the insurances are provided by state-specific insurers...think "blue cross / blue care of michigan."
that's my understanding, anyway...happy to be corrected.
" we do have companies that cross state lines and have common centralized benefits, no? "
No.
We have companies that cross state lines and buy similar benefits from local insurers in each state. That the product they offer to their employees is consistent company wide, does not mean the provider (or laws they must meet) are consistent company wide.
that may be the norm, i have no idea. i do know that i work in michigan and my medical insurance is BCBS of South Carolina.
A few years ago, I worked for Dell based in Austin. I was located in the Chicago area. I was on a totally different insurance carrier than my co-workers in Austin. The carrier and plan the company purchased for them was not available in Illinois.
August 5th, 2020 at 12:14 PM ^
I can support this. It reads less as a wish list and more being focused strictly on player health, safety, and stability. I hope they get all the assurances they are looking for.