College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

The Daily Texan > Opinion

UT and the public option

By Joshua Avelar

Daily Texan Columnist

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Last week, students claiming to represent the ideals and perspectives of both major American political parties debated the merits of the proposed health care reform bills in Congress. While College Republicans and University Democrats mostly relayed arguments that their respective parties have been making throughout the year, something about this debate struck me as interesting.

I found it ironic that arguments against government expansion into health care were being made at a public institution by public university students.

The University’s enrollment shows that more than 50,000 trust the government to provide educational alternatives to the private sector. Current UT students, and in many cases their parents, could have said no to so-called “government takeovers” by opting for another institution not funded by tax dollars. Not attending a public university such as UT would have kept your hard-earned money, or your parents’ hard-earned money, in the free, private market away from those troublesome government bureaucrats.

This is not the case for the students walking across this campus. Aspects of UT led thousands of individuals and their families to select a product of government ingenuity to cultivate their  minds and set the path for their careers. Similar aspects may have motivated current UT students to apply to other public institutions around the state and the nation before reaching a final decision to spend their college years on the 40 Acres.

In the debate Thursday night, College Republican Colin Harris told The Daily Texan that health care needed reform, but not a public option, stating that “competition works.” Harris is right in saying that competition works but fails to realize that public institutions, in any industry, increase the level of competition. Using education as an example, UT currently ranks No. 47, alongside Penn State and the University of Florida, among the top national universities list compiled by US News & World Report. UT edges out Tulane, a private university, seated at No. 50. Further ahead on the list lies UC-Berkeley at No. 21, breathing down the neck of No. 20 Notre Dame and edging out two more private universities, Carnegie Mellon at No. 22 and Georgetown at No. 23.

Competition does work, and it works better when more players enter the game. The government has a chance to enter the realm of health insurance, assuring millions of citizens coverage they desperately need and otherwise would never have. Many students here at UT can thank the state government for erecting an establishment that made it possible for them to go to college, knowing that tuition rates at a private university may have made it extremely difficult to make ends meet while pursuing an education.

The situation many of us would have faced had there been no public option in higher education is the exact situation those without health care coverage are facing today. Had the debate last week taken place a few miles south at St. Edward’s University, then the College Republicans’ argument against a public option may have been more valid.

However, UT’s establishment in 1883 did not ruin higher education in Texas, nor did it put St. Edward’s out of business. If anything, it gave both institutions an incentive to be better.

Avelar is a government senior.

 

Comments

11 comments
Your name
Fri Nov 6 2009 12:27
Public option is an effective way to get the insurance industry out of monopolistic grip on Americans' health. The healthcare system is rigged by the private insurance and hospitals with the public at it's mercy. NO thanks.
Still Love UT
Thu Nov 5 2009 06:03
In the U.S. News rankings that you cite, the top 10 spots are all occupied by private research universities. I fail to see how Tulane's number 50 spot is relevant.
The Cowardly Liberal
Wed Nov 4 2009 15:36
I wonder why the American people voted the Republican party out of power? For the life of me, I just can't figure it out. I mean, you guys have mastered an ancient and extremely difficult form of Japanese poetry that most practitioners struggle with for an entire lifetime. Even then, so often they fall short of the mark. There are so many syllables to keep track of in the space of three lines, it begins to become tantamount to juggling chainsaws. Surely Hippocrates had the haiku in mind when he said,"The life so short, the craft so long to learn." Will you rest on your laurels or will you next attempt a villanelle?
UDEMSSUCK
Wed Nov 4 2009 15:17
My favorite part was Geoff's lab coat and mask :D
amused
Wed Nov 4 2009 14:25
I thought Colin's haiku was the highlight of the night. Shame on the DT for leaving out the one shining moment of the entire debate. I want that hour of my life back.
Analogy Fail
Wed Nov 4 2009 11:30
Paul Burke, how amusing... wasn't it Mao who said political power grows out of the barrel of a gun? And isn't it the communications director of the White House, Anita Dunn, who enthusiastically claims Mao to be one of her favorite political philosophers?

Let me know when the rule of law, and not the power growing from the barrel of a gun, is the message the White House is communicating.

Analogy Fail
Wed Nov 4 2009 11:23
Our wonderful Democrats working at the Daily Texan seem to have excellent antennae for "irony" -- that's not to say irony. Josh, can you identify a single individual in the entire state whose dollars manage to avoid the public education net? We all pay taxes on the sale of goods, and we are directly or indirectly taxed for owning or renting property, respectively. People try to make the best decisions they can within the constraints of the world in which we live, even if those constraints are imposed contrary to their principles. I know that may be difficult for you to understand, but here's the middle school version: why should an individual suffer further poverty by denying himself access to the funds already extracted from him? There's no option to get a refund on those dollars and direct them to another institution.

It's even possible that upon examining public education funding and realizing that it's impossible to opt out, one might not support the expansion of further programs, like the public option... err, competitive option... err, whatever it is today. This "option" imposes a tax penalty on those who refuse to participate, so much like the public education system, you will pay even if you don't play. The plan also regulates private plans, so that five years from now, they'll have to offer the same bucket of swill as all of the other private plans, as well as the government plan, but without the benefit of the infinite subsidy of the printing press of the U.S. Treasury. Some competition. At least in education, private universities can offer the kind of education they think most benefits their students. The government health plan, if applied in concept to private universities, would be more like requiring St. Edward's to offer every major, amenity, and facility that UT does -- at the same rate of tuition -- but without the subsidy.

Be more thoughtful.

The Cowardly Liberal
Wed Nov 4 2009 10:39
Thank you, Paul Burke! That's the best thing I've read in the DT in a very long time. I'll look for your book. Sounds like you've got some Steinbeck in you!
Paul Burke
Wed Nov 4 2009 09:44
When government (a.k.a. - law) wasn't involved men shot men in the street and banks were robbed - the pablum puking rhetoric of the ignorant serves no purpose. This is a nation of laws - not dictators or armies or royalty - it's a better system than most. But it is government who put that system in place and it is government that is supposed to manage it - not lobbyist.

A well thought out system of checks and balances can be corrupted when individuals "sell out". The problem is our lazy uneducated population from which we draw representatives from and how easily their morals are bought off to stay elected or gain title, power and stature for title, power and stature sake. The system as now rigged requires a ton of cash to keep your job as a representative.

The solution is campaign finance reform. And I would remind everyone who insists on making empty headed statements about government being bad - to step back and think about it - hyper self interest and a slavish focus on the bottom line may work for an individual business model but it is one helluva lousy way to run a Country.

I would remind the geniuses that swallow the rhetoric that running a business and governing (ie managing) a Country are two different things. It's a question of balance. When one sector of the market gets a choke hold on the macroeconomics and structure it thwarts and stifles economic growth and inventiveness across the whole broad market.

GX - when government doesn't get involved everyone looses in the long term. The single mindedness of one market sector and its laser like focus on its one business model doesn't take into account the ramifications or unintended consequences across the whole market nationally and internationally.

To put it in simple terms your State forests would have been clear cut by now because individual market sectors have zero self control when its only focus, goal, and pursuit is to maximize profit at any and all costs. Why do you think overfishing is an issue? Because the individual corporation says - the next guy can cut back I'm making as much money as I can.

No one cuts back until a law and a power able to enforce that law is passed by the majority to ensure our collective survival and the continuation of the market. That law and that power is called government. Without it and this isn't hyperbole we return to the wild,wild west. And in case you didn't know it no amount of being right has ever stopped a bullet.

So wise up young man and get a clue. People are now so comfortable they think government is bad - when it is government that has provided that comfort by replacing the rule of the gun with the rule of law.

Without laws and because of deregulation the economy goes through boom and bust cycles - rocking everyone's world. Unless you are okay with all that and would like a return to the ghetto model of running a country, city, town and street - I suggest you pull back and think about who is telling you Government is bad - I'll answer that for you - it's the individual self interest who have been restricted in their pursuit of profit because the do more damge than good to the big picture. They have no moral compass or long term understanding factored into their business plan of maximizing profits through any and all means or when it comes to making a quick buck, and to everyone else be damned.

Pick up a history book and go back to economics class - you have a lot to learn.

Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home

gx
Wed Nov 4 2009 06:50
When the government gets involved, everyone loses in the long term.
Colin
Wed Nov 4 2009 03:11
I'm not blaming you for this, but my quote from the original news article was written in haiku form (read it again), yet when I was quoted this detail was left out. Obviously, the constraint of 5-7-5 meter tends to oversimplfy arguments. Like I said, I'm not blaming you, because the context was not provided in the original article I was quoted in, but the fact that some variant of my words have made it to the DT twice with no contextual background, leads me to want to compose a firing line setting the record straight, in haiku of course.






log out