Pay for Play or Educate?

Pay for Play or Educate?

The View from the Middle

When asked if college athletes should be paid for their efforts, most people instinctively say, “Of Course”.  They think these athletes are being exploited, and who is in favor of that.  But when you scratch below the surface of this issue, you might come up with a very different answer.  Before we go deep, however, let’s dispense with some distracting side issues.

You may have heard the starting guard for the University of Connecticut’s basketball team say that he sometimes went to bed hungry.  I played ball in college and never had that problem, but I now understand that rules and customs have changed. Today’s demands on athletes might cause a young man or woman to miss a provided meal or deny them the opportunity to get a summer job to earn extra spending money.

This needs to be fixed, and the fix has already started.  The NCAA has recently approved a plan for “unlimited meals” for athletes, which should help.  Also, if program requirements prohibit an athlete from getting a summer job, they should be compensated for that. This, however, It is small potatoes.  The real issues run much deeper.

The first big reality we must face is purely financial.  It is true that colleges bring in millions in revenues from their sports programs each year. The University of Arkansas, for example, will make close to $100 million this year, but will spend it all.  95% of its revenues will go to things like scholarships, equipment, game and travel expenses (for all sports), facilities and salaries.  The remaining funds go to the university’s general fund and to a “rainy day fund” for lean years and extraordinary expenses.  There is little to no funds to pay athletes.  And remember, the U of A is one of only 23 programs in the country that is self-sufficient.

Finally, Football and Basketball are the only sports that actually make money for colleges today.  So, unless you plan to eliminate all other sports, real pay for play is not possible.   The second big issue is a cultural one that combines unrealistic expectations and a flawed education system.

In the US we have over a million young men playing high school football, and 60% of them believe that they will play in college while only about 3% actually will.  If half of that 60% believe they will make it to the pros, we have 300,000 players expecting to get into an NFL that only drafts 250 players per year.  The numbers truly don’t add up.  We must help these young men understand the realities of this situation and prepare them for multiple career choices.

But, our educational system has dropped the ball for these young people, especially young black males.  The high school graduation rate for black males is just over 50% vs. almost 80% for white males, and it doesn’t get any better in college.  Only about 50% of black male athletes graduate from college, which is the lowest rate for all students and compares to an 82% graduation rate for whites.  So, fewer young black males get into college and much fewer graduate. 

There are also horror stories of athletes who get to college and can’t read.  What’s worse is that many of these young men leave college no better off.  But, I can’t blame colleges for players who can’t read.  This represents a failure of primary and secondary schools to hold these kids accountable for even minimal grade level requirements.  Parents, of course, also have to take responsibility for this problem.  But, I do have a solution!

The NCAA could start a 20-year program to help us segue from where we are today to where we would like to be.  In year one, each college could accept 20% of their athletes under a “hardship” program.  These students could take remedial classes that will improve their situation.  Maybe they graduate from college with high school level academic skills, but I think most people would be OK with that.

In year two they could accept only 19% and in year three only 18% and so on.  This would send an immediate message to primary and secondary schools as well as parents and students that in 20 years there would be no “hardship” exceptions.  Eventually, all athletes would have to handle basic college courses.

Will there be pain with this program?  Yes, but there is pain right now for millions of young men who have put all of their eggs in the pro sports basket but came up short.  Even if we paid college athletes $50,000 or $100,000 per year (which won’t happen) this will only support them until they are in their early 20’s.  What are they going to do for the rest of their lives?

Rather than continuing this charade that maroons hundreds of thousands of young men each year, we need to make college about education again. The few that hit the professional athletics lottery won’t suffer from the increased knowledge forced upon them.

War on Youth

A New Year’s Resolution For Our Youth
The View from the Middle

I would like to suggest a New Year’s resolution for the youth in our country, and that is to build their awareness of what is happening in our world today. I know it is tempting for our 18 to 39 year olds to plow through life with their heads down as I did back in the 70’s. I was indestructible. I was busy working, raising a family and just enjoying life.
But I was the product of “The Greatest Generation” as described by Tom Brokaw in his wonderful book of the same name. That unselfish generation sacrificed for their children (me) by fighting the Second World War, by working hard and saving and by building an America that was better for me than it was for them.
However, that great generation seems to have spawned America’s most selfish generation, which is now in Washington running our country into the ground. This generation (my generation!) is making decisions today that will profoundly impact your lives and it is not doing it with you in mind. Let me give you three examples.
First, our leaders in Washington are spending money like there is no tomorrow, and there may not be if things don’t change. Our debt, which will become your debt, has just topped 17 trillion dollars, and our President hardly talks about it. He now says that “closing the wealth gap” is more important than our debt and deficits!
While I believe that he should be working to close that gap, why would the government have to spend any of your money to accomplish this? Unfortunately, our current administration seems to believe that government spending is the solution to every problem. But you must realize that every dollar we borrow will be passed on to you for servicing or payback. WE are avoiding our responsibilities at your expense.
The second example is Social Security. In 1950 there were 16 people contributing to Social Security for every one beneficiary. Today that ratio is down to 3 to 1, and in just 17 years it will be down to 2 to 1. For years SS was bringing in more money to the government than it was paying out, and what was our government doing with that money? Spending it, of course. In the last three years, however, SS has paid out more than it took in. It is already in the red!
This, however, is just a foreshadowing of worse things to come. Social Security is projected to become insolvent in just 20 years. That means that if you are even in your 40’s, SS will NOT be there for you. So, if you hear politicians say that SS is “just fine”, that means it is just fine for them, not you.
And now we have Obamacare. The President and congress have made this program sound like the greatest thing since sliced bread. We are going to insure millions more people, cover pre-existing conditions, eliminate life time benefit limits and allow children to stay on their parents’ plans until they are 26. That sounds great, but I’m sure you’ve you heard the old adage that “there is no such thing as a free lunch”? Guess who is paying for all of this – you are!
Obamacare is all about transferring money, payments, wealth (whatever) from one group to another, and you are the major target. In fact, you are the KEY to this whole thing working. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) must get young and healthy people (you) to pay for older and sicker people (me). Just go onto the healthcare.gov site and take a look for yourself. Your premium costs and deductibles will take your breath away, while it’s doing the same to your money.
The point is, you literally can’t afford to ignore what is going on in Washington today. Your lives are being mortgaged by the “me” generation simply because our representatives in Washington refuse to make tough choices today. You need to use your influence, even if that is just your vote, to save your future.
You need representation in Washington that supports a balanced budget today, not in 30, 40 or 50 years. You need people who are willing to reform entitlements today so that they will still be there for you when you need them. Finally, you need Obamacare to go away. You need no-nonsense solutions like tort reform, selling insurance across state lines and Health Saving Accounts (HSA’s) to bring down health care costs without sticking you with the bill.

Obamacare - Force vs Choice

Force vs Choice

The View from the Middle

I have to admit that the extreme liberals have succeeded in making me feel guilty with their “fix it, don’t nix it” message when it comes to Obamacare.  Over the last couple of months I racked my brain to find ways to improve this law vs just eliminating it.  After going through a case of Band-Aids, a mile of duct tape and a ton of spackle, I concluded that a fix was not possible because the law has a fatal flaw.

What makes this law unsalvageable is that, at its roots, Obamacare hinges on “force” instead of “choice”.  This deleterious defect is so fundamental to the law’s spirit that it truly does render it unredeemable.  Americans, and I think all people, would always prefer choice to arm twisting, however Obamacare is chock full of coercion.

And this coercion starts with the basic aim of the law, which is to provide health care (actually health insurance) to all people.  Obamacare accomplishes this, not by providing Americans more options at more reasonable prices to, but by forcing them through penalty of a fine (sorry, tax) to buy health insurance. 

Believe it or not, there are some people who actually “choose” not to buy health insurance.  I personally don’t recommend that, but then I shouldn’t have the right to force them, should I?  This desire for choice is so strong in America that even after Obamacare has been law for 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projects that America will still have 30 million uninsured. 

Obamacare (let’s just start calling it the Affordable Care Act or ACA) also forces people to purchase coverage that they may not want or need.  For example, my wife and I are over 60 and don’t plan to have any more children.  Despite our lack of interest in maternity coverage and the fact that we are physically incapable of having children, the ACA forces us to carry it.  I’ll let you struggle to answer the question – Why?

I would prefer a buffet of coverage choices so that I can construct the plan I feel is right for me.  I may want a larger deductible.  I may want a lower co-pay.  I may not want pediatric services (another ACA requirement).  What I do want is “choice”. 

The ACA also forces doctors to do things they don’t like.  First and foremost, it tells doctors what they can charge for certain services.  This can push doctors to eliminate tests and or treatments for which they don’t get fairly reimbursed.  This will also control their income and in effect make them employees of the state.  Do we really want to get our health care from civil servants?  Envision your doctor’s office looking like the DMV.  You become a number instead of a patient.

Personally, I want my doctor to make decisions on my treatment based on what he or she thinks is right for me.  I want doctors to charge what they think is appropriate given their costs.  If a doctor charges too much, I can always choose to go to a different doctor. 

Finally, the ACA controls the Insurance industry beyond all reasonableness.  They dictate what insurance companies have to cover and what they can charge and even how much profit they can make.  That sounds suspiciously like government health care executed through a compliant insurance industry.

I’ll trust the free market and my power of “choice” to deliver quality insurance for me and my family.  I would also remind everyone that “control” always sounds like a good idea for “the other guy”.  Wait until our impersonal, unfeeling, despotic government wants to constrain your liberty or even your pursuit of happiness.  Remember, a government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.

But don’t feel too bad for Insurance companies.  YOU are their insurance policy.  If they don’t make a sufficient profit in the first three years, the government will subsidize them.  And when our politicians promise to subsidize the insurance companies, they aren’t committing their personal funds to do so.  They don’t have any money.  They will be spending YOUR money, the final insult to all of us.

What health care and health insurance needs is competition and choice.  Removing the profit incentive and eliminating choice simply leads to inefficiency, inferior service and higher prices. 

Profit, is it a Bad Thing?

Is Profit a Bad Thing?

The View from the Middle

The incentive for profit is what makes the USA the best country in the world.  Through the 2010 campaigns I heard politicians struggle to explain how jobs are created when that is actually a simple concept in my mind.  The incentive for profit is what creates jobs.  Ingenious people come up with ideas for a product or a service that they can sell to other people and make a profit.  With the revenue from that product or service they employ people who have to produce that product or supply that service to the public. 

These employees will make salaries and pay taxes to our local, state and federal government.  In fact, these salaries paid out will often exceed the profit taken.  For example, Procter & Gamble, the company I used to work for, pays out significantly more in salaries and benefits to its employees than it makes in profit.  For many small businesses, that ratio can be even higher.  In addition, P&G has to cover all of the manufacturing and marketing costs associated with its products, which, of course, provides an income for thousands of others in their supplier network.  Without the profit incentive, however, there would be no Procter & Gamble, no salaries, no taxes paid by its employees and, of course, none of the products that they produce

Then I started thinking about what else profit does besides giving people the incentive to create jobs, and it hit me that profit is what delivers efficiency and innovation in the free market system.  If a business can’t make a profit, it will eventually cease to exist.  Every business must deliver its product as efficiently as possible so as to keep its price down and yet deliver profit for the owners or its shareholders.

Every business also has to make its products competitive.  They must constantly consider ways to improve their products so that they can compete in the market.  So, it is the desire for profit that drives both efficiency and innovation.  It is a simple but powerful concept and driving force in capitalism. 

But there is one thing that throws a monkey wrench into this beautiful system – a monopoly.  A monopoly eliminates competition and suppresses the need for both efficiency and innovation.  If you only have one source for a particular product, that company can charge whatever they want for it.  They don’t need to be efficient and don’t need to improve their product, and the eventual loser is the consumer.  That is why our government is supposed to protect us from monopolies.  So, just to be sure we are all following the message here, profit is a good thing, delivering efficiency and innovation, and monopolies are bad things, destroying competition and punishing consumers.

So, what do you think a government take over of health care will deliver to the people of the United States – a monopoly (a bad thing) that doesn’t have to make a profit (a good thing)?  It is the worst of both worlds, and a recipe for outrageous cost increases, poor service and the death of innovation in this critically important industry?  And isn’t this exactly what the federal government is famous for delivering?

For evidence, look no further than the Post Office, our public education system or go to your local Department of Motor Vehicles office.  While there are a couple of places where this set up makes sense (like the military and law enforcement), government takeover of any industry spells disaster for it, and if anything, we should be moving in the opposite direction.  Health Care definitely needs to improve, but in my opinion, the last thing we need is a government take over of the entire industry.

Man vs. The State - Truth vs. Deceit

Man vs. The State – Truth vs. Deceit

The View from the Middle

In 1946 a young lieutenant in the Navy reserve and veteran of WWII in the Pacific gave a speech in Boston on Independence Day.  He stressed that, “The right of the individual against the State has ever been one of our most cherished political principles.”  This young man and war hero was no other than John F. Kennedy. 

This was a core belief that Kennedy embraced throughout his life, even to his untimely death in Dallas.  He continually warned Americans that we must be ever vigilant not to consign our “great problems to the all-absorbing hands of the great Leviathan – the state.”  Kennedy believed in the power of the people and the private sector to solve our problems.

Whether the problem is unemployment, poverty or health care he would clearly caution us NOT to turn over control to the government.  However, this is the fundamental problem we are beginning to see with Obamacare.

The current website problem is truly only the tip of the iceberg.  I was surprised by the absolute collapse of the site.  I’m assuming it will be fixed, but it does begin to suggest what kind of service we might expect later as we try to access services and confirm or question claims and payments.  If you thought it was difficult dealing with insurance companies before now, wait until you interject the government between you and them.  Let the nightmare begin.

As suggested above, the first real issue with Obamacare is one of personal choice.  The government will now decide what coverage all Americans must carry.  All plans must include the 10 essential benefits outlined in the law.  That sounds great, right, until you dig in a little. 

My wife and I, for example, are over 60 and have no children at home, yet we MUST carry Maternity and Pediatric coverage.  What if we don’t want this coverage?  Too bad!  We have no choice.  This over-insuring is needed, however, as part of the financial shenanigans essential to make this plan work.

And when you hear the word “subsidy”, beware.  It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?  We are lead to believe that insurance companies are simply charging needy people less for their policies.  Dream on.  “Subsidy” just means that taxpayer money (YOUR money) is being spent to reduce these costs.  Barack Obama isn’t writing a personal check for these subsidies.  The government has no money of its own.  YOU are paying for these subsidies through your taxes.  Let’s just be honest.

I also predict that there is much more disappointment to come in the area of services.  Since the government does not have a profit incentive that requires it to be efficient and innovative or go out of business, it will deliver what it has become famous for delivering - high costs and poor services.  And don’t forget that you and I are the government’s sugar daddy.

The second real victim in this charade is “the truth”.  For years the President has been saying, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.  Period!”  I have heard estimates of 10 to 129 million people who will have their policies canceled as a result of Obamacare regulations.  This will make it very difficult for these people to “keep” these plans.

He also promised that premiums would go down on average $2,500 a year, yet logic and research have suggested quite the opposite is likely. 

And now we have politicians who are actually defending this dishonesty.  Some admit that the President lied, but suggest this is acceptable because it helped advance a cause they support.  At best, supporters agree that he mislead America, but still give him a pass for the same reason. 

Are we really willing to accept this new lower standard where duplicity is acceptable if it advances your cause.  What if lying advances “the other guy’s” cause?  If we embrace deceit, greed and dependence instead of truth, compassion and personal responsibility we will have a fundamentally transformed America.  Is that the picture you envisioned when the President used those words during his campaign?

Finally, the reality is that this law may never have even passed if the President had told the truth.  In 1994, Hillarycare never even got into committee because insurance companies ran ads warning that many of Americans would lose their policies.  Throw in honest projections of the costs and the virtual elimination of choice, and I would guarantee it.  I think this is a fair question for any congressman or woman who voted for this law in 2010.  Given what we know now would they vote for the ACA today?  I would hope they at least have 20-20 hindsight!