Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: No Democratic rally likely at State Fair
Next Post: Caption contest!
Posted in:
* The “American Thinker” ran a piece this week entitled “Destroying Football: The Left’s Endgame”…
It is in this current climate of pacifism (and that is the purpose of the campaign: to turn football into a more pacific game, thus removing another layer of America’s masculinity) that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has signed a law mandating insurance for student-athletes. […]
Even more distressing to the left is that sports started as a means of training for soldiers. That is why football is so appealing to America; it is a he-man sport, a vestige of the old America, where an association of free men stand together in battle. Yes, team effort is required, but there is also plenty of room for heroics, and the individual may make a huge difference.
But at football’s core is a physicality bordering on violence, and to the left, that is anathema — an atavistic impulse that must be squeezed out of our children.
So instead of a healthy game of tackle football at recess, liberals substitute Ritalin and maybe a good heated game of tag. […]
In the end, liberals want a world under their control — one where impulses are channeled in the direction they choose, not where nature or free will directs. Sports are an expression of values, and those values must comport with the utopian vision of the left. There can be nothing outside the collective.
This piece is an object lesson in never, ever letting ideology get in the way of the facts.
* The legislation in question was sponsored by state Sen. Napoleon Harris, a former National Football League star. Harris is a moderate to conservative Democrat on social issues and was able to get other NFL players involved in passing the bill…
Harris, a former Thornton Township High School football player who went on to play in the National Football League, recalled his own playing days.
“Rocky Clark’s story could have been me,” Harris said. “I waked down this trail. I played on this field. I know what it’s like to sacrifice yourself on a Friday night or a Saturday morning.”
Also praising the law were former Chicago Bears tight end Emery Moorehead and offensive lineman Dan Jiggetts.
“This situation should not exist where you send your child out to participate and he gets tragically injured and you’ve got to fight the battle all by yourself,” Jiggetts said. “This certainly helps a great deal to … make this right within this state.”
Why did Sen. Harris sponsor the bill? This is why…
The law was inspired by the late Rasul “Rocky” Clark, who played football for Eisenhower High School in the Chicago suburb Blue Island until he was paralyzed from the neck down when he was tackled in 2000 during a game. His care was provided through a $5 million insurance policy held by the school district. When that policy hit its limit, he relied on Medicaid, his mother and donations.
And then he died.
More…
In a September 2000 game against Oak Forest High School, the junior was grabbed by the shoulders and tackled, and his head hit the ground. Doctors said his neck was broken in two places. Clark was hospitalized for several months and the injuries left him a quadriplegic. Despite his injuries, he later graduated from Eisenhower.
Those last two excerpts were in a story that the “American Thinker” writer actually linked to in his post, but the facts were never cited.
* A summary of the new law…
Known as “Rocky’s Law,” it requires all high school districts in Illinois to purchase catastrophic injury insurance up to $3 million for each of its student-athletes by Jan. 1, 2014. Families are eligible for the money up to five years after paying the first $50,000 in medical expenses. According to the law, insurance cannot cost more than $5 per student and it is up to the school districts to pay for the insurance.
*** UPDATE *** A commenter below is absolutely right that I should’ve also pointed out the bipartisan support for Sen. Harris’ bill. Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady - who is hardly involved in an international liberal conspiracy - was a co-sponsor, as was GOP state Rep. David Harris.
The bill received a strongly bipartisan 47 votes in the Senate and 71 in the House.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 10:43 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: No Democratic rally likely at State Fair
Next Post: Caption contest!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I have no problem with the idea of making sure the kids are insured against such horrible injuries, and in fact support it. What bothers me is state government leaving it up to the already strapped school districts to pay for it without formalizing some state assistance. We’ll see if that happens, but it looks like another unfunded mandate.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 10:51 am
- already strapped school districts -
I read that the insurance will cost something like $1.50 per athelete, I doubt this is going to be the final straw for the schools.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 10:57 am
How would this law have helped ‘Rocky’, who was ALREADY covered under a larger insurance policy than the law now requires?
Not that I disagree with the law. If you are going to have kids play sports, and charge the public money to watch them, then you should cover their injuries. And, I see no reason why the state should help with this particular mandate. Did I mention that schools charge admission to games?
Comment by mythoughtis Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 10:58 am
- who was ALREADY covered under a larger insurance policy than the law now requires -
Large policies still run out, as Rocky’s did toward the end of his life.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:01 am
==sports started as a means of training for soldiers==
not for hunting, for group solidarity, for cooperative activity, for healthy growth, not even for fun?
Funny how everything functionally ties together in the Conservative mind.
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:02 am
I have no problem with this law. Nor do I have problems with better equipment and safer practices. Why did they name it for a kid who held a $5 million policy that ran out when the law only provides for $3 million? Is there something I am missing in all this? The American Thinker piece is clearly over the top.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:05 am
I love how the boys on the right claim the law is another unfunded mandate, but then refuse to raise revenues enough to cover those mandates.
To the point of the post, the end game of the far right ideological whacko that wrote the piece seems to be that in football, “whatever happens, you’re on your own. Don’t come crying to me for my hard-earned money to pay for your hospital and funeral bills, you taker! Oh, and those mandated helmets and pads are a slippery slope towards the collective and rob you of your right to determine, ON YOUR OWN, what you will wear on the field. And, one more thing, concealed carry should be allowed on all football fields.”.
What a mo-ron!
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:05 am
As somebody who played and now coaches football, this is a great new law. No, this law would not have helped Rocky because he was covered by a larger policy, but it will help those who were not covered at all or covered at lower levels. I remember the Rocky story when he was first injured and the ordeal he and his family went through when the insurance ran out - his family said something to the effect that Rocky was being punished for living too long after the injury. That should never happen to anybody. My understanding is the cost is low and there are many ways to find the money top cover it without tax dollars. Good law and good for Senator Harris pushing for it. Good things can happen in government, and do all of the time - this is one example of it.
Comment by Dave Fako Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:05 am
Sorry, Anon 11:05 is me. Too quick to push the send button.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:06 am
It isn’t going to be the left who “destroys” football dude, it’s going to be moms….
At least out my way there has been a drop over the last few years in the number of boys playing tackle football at the youth levels because more parents are not letting their kids play.
Regardless of the risks relative to other sports the perception is that football is the most dangerous and that is impacting participation.
Then again I let my son play tackle football and rugby, so I am a bad parent in some folks eyes.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:10 am
Am I missing something or isn’t the catastrophic injury insurance for those above and beyond the insurance coverage the districts already carry?
Comment by Darienite Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:18 am
The author of that “American Thinker” (a slur on both) post needs a rabies shot. Bizarre.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:21 am
recognition of the dangers and increasing the coverage to cope with the potentials is a great thing. this process has been ongoing for some time with schools. many years ago a program I’m familiar with decided to end and focus on soccer because the parents were worried about dangers and there was also the financial element. this season the NCAA will have rule changes for college football surrounding hits. there may be ejections. there are a number of focuses for the potential for concussions or catastrophic injury and Sen. Harris thanks for this legislation!
Comment by Amalia Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:23 am
You got it American Thinker. And after they destroy your precious football they’re going after Fourth of July parades, petting zoos, First Communion presents, Friends and Family calling plans, push up bras, teeth whiteners and Girl Scout cookies. Nothing can stop them. “Thinker” seems a bit of a stretch.
Comment by And I Approved This Message Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:24 am
excellent law. if a football program is sunk by a $5 fee for catastrophic insurance, how do they even pay for a football? perhaps in the future they can offer a couple optional larger coverage amounts, and apply an inflation factor.
the article makes light of long term effect of head injuries. what crap. (maybe go back to leather helmets and no face guards?) medical knowledge progresses. what seemed fine years ago, we now shake our heads at. years ago players would get cortisone shots willy nilly. and go back in the game as soon as you could count to two.
Comment by langhorne Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:24 am
This bill passed with the support of several republicans in the house and almost all republicans in the senate. It’s not exactly fair to say that the right is against these safety issues based on the article of one nutjob.
Comment by Realist Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:24 am
I dont see the problem.
All americans play football to be manly and train for war
America is a strong country because we are manly
health care is for the weak, and is unmanly
those who support medical care for the injured are not american, manly or football players
Therefore we need to keep football players from having access to unmanyl, unamerican health care
I like the concept, per darwinism in sports…
Comment by Ghost Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:36 am
I like the law and the “thinker” piece is drivel.
I am curious about something though. Is the state mandating that the Insurance company cannot charge more than $5 per athlete? If so can you find a policy to cover a football type program for that? There would certainly appear to be more risk associated with a football school vs. no football. Which should increase the rate. I am not agreeing with the AT article just curious about the mandate language.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:41 am
I doubt very much that the author of the article ever padded up or buckled a chin strap.
Once you get past puberty, football doesn’t border on violent, it is violent. That’s the point. The most violent generally wins. Kids get bigger, faster, stronger every year.
Both my boys played through youth and high school and are now on football scholarships in college. The overall level of play, and associated violence, is off the charts compared to when I played 30 plus years ago.
That’s why there are helmets, pads, rules, referees, etc.
Still with all those protective measures, serious injuries will occur. Extra insurance is a no-brainer, except for no-brainer whackjobs.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:42 am
@Word
Never thought i’d say it, but i couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:50 am
Sounds like a communist plot to me. Pretty soon kids will just be throwing around imaginary balls in bubble wrap.
Comment by Boone's is Back Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 11:55 am
So where does this issue stop? Stuff happens in sports and real life. The baseball off the batter’s or pitcher’s head. Headers in soccer are climbing in the concussion stats. Undercutting a rebounder in basketball. Need a softer puck for hockey? Cut those limbs off trees because the kid may fall out? Fines for any biker/skater/boarder who does not wear a helmet. The list is endless. Take the same concept and move to youth (1-8 grade) sports program which are not school based. Who covers them?
On one side people scream against ’socialist’ medicial coverage but want to be taken care of if something happens, particularly when they cannot pay for it. Insurance becomes mandatory because (as a local attorney advertises) accidents are the results of another person’s poor decisions.
I have no problem with the law. I played football through college and would repeat it again with no hesitation. But why stop at $3M? Why not make it lifetime care? $5M for catastrophic care is nothing over a lifetime. Rocky was young. His care went through $5M in less than 10 years, but he could have also lived 30-40 years more. Who pays for that? Medicaid in his situation. There is no simple answer here.
“Sports started as a means of training for soldiers”? I must have missed that lecture in anthropology class where skills in hunting with spears/arrows, building shelters, and running for distance to track down game were kinda important.
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 12:09 pm
The underlying argument is that insurance is effeminate which begs the question: has the author chosen not to have health insurance to protect his masculinity?
Comment by SirLankselot Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 12:11 pm
Football’s not going anywhere. It’s a multi-billion-dollar business at the college and professional levels.
Who walks away from billions, for any reason?
In reality, the universe of those who ever play football at any organized level is very small. Only about 2% of high school players go on to play in college and about 1.5% of college players ever get a cup of coffee in the NFL, much less a career.
Not many have to play to keep it a lucrative spectator sport.
The risks inherent in football have always been there. They’ve been more apparent in regards to orthopedics, but now there is greater research into head trauma. Knowledge is all good. But you’ll always have those who can perform at a high level willing to take the risks.
I understand there’s some risk involved in NASCAR, what with the driving fast and the walls and such. Yet plenty of folks would love to take that risk, and they sure can put fannies in the seats.
And I believe UFC is the fastest-growing TV sport going, with huge pay-per-view paydays.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 12:14 pm
Ron B, exempt tort liability levies by local governments from the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law restrictions and this small cost, and yes unfunded mandate, could be easily managed.
The article is absolutely ridiculous. It cracks me up to see a supposedly legitimate writer go off the deep end like this, whether the deep left end or the deep right end.
I too like some of the posters played football a long time ago, and what I played is light years different than what is played today. I was concussed (hey, maybe still am!!) and no one knew how to address it. I only got pulled that game when I gave a receiver 15 yards because I wasn’t sure the one I was seeing was mine to cover.
American Thinker, shoulda Thunk better!
Comment by Mongo Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 12:29 pm
-I love how the boys on the right claim the law is another unfunded mandate, but then refuse to raise revenues enough to cover those mandates.-
uhhh…isn’t that the definition of unfunded, there are no funds to cover the new law when it is passed ?
Where is Mr. Miller when a liberal dishes out “gratuitous” insults against conservatives.
As for the law, I have no problem with it as long as the new fees are passed on the the athletes via higher athletic fees.
Comment by Boog Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 12:32 pm
@Word
True…
When I played Pop Warner many, many years ago I think the most you could weigh in 8th grade was maybe, maybe 135 ~140 pounds at most now things are really different..
http://www.popwarner.com/football/footballstructure.htm
Even in the program my son played in last year, he was playing against kids his age who had 60 pounds on him… Kids are bigger now, that is for sure.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 12:36 pm
This is such a wonderful example of the kind of crazy fantasies that the right loves to put in the minds of the left. Newsflash: Football is completely nonpartisan. I’m on the left and I LOVE football. I can’t wait for tonight’s Bears game.
But with the increasing injuries, there’s no way in hell I’m putting my boys at risk and I know I’m not alone in this. And respectfully OneMan, it’s not just Mom’s but an awful lot of Dad’s I know who are saying no to football for their boys.
My best friend is a conservative Republican with an athlete for a kid. He’s the one that convinced me that it’s just not worth the risk. This isn’t about partisanship - it’s about risk appetite. I love watching the game but don’t have the risk appetite to put my kid out there.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 1:18 pm
First they came for dodgeball, but I didn’t speak up because I opted out of PE. Next they decided to give everyone a trophy, but I didn’t speak out because, hey, who doesn’t want a trophy? Now they’re coming for football and there is no one left to speak out because the liberal collective has assimilated the entire country.
Mission accomplished.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 1:19 pm
===-I love how the boys on the right claim the law is another unfunded mandate, but then refuse to raise revenues enough to cover those mandates.-
uhhh…isn’t that the definition of unfunded, there are no funds to cover the new law when it is passed ?
Where is Mr. Miller when a liberal dishes out “gratuitous” insults against conservatives.
As for the law, I have no problem with it as long as the new fees are passed on the the athletes via higher athletic fees.===
@Boog-Uhhh, it wasn’t a gratuitous insult. It’s the truth. Rich has deleted a few of my posts in the past. He polices the blog like a hawk.
So, as long as the athletes pay for the insurance coverage, you’ve got no problem with the law. Uhhh, what if the kid’s family can’t afford to buy coverage? Then what, Boog? Shift funds from the classroom, or raise a property tax?
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 1:56 pm
@Public
–So, as long as the athletes pay for the insurance coverage, you’ve got no problem with the law. Uhhh, what if the kid’s family can’t afford to buy coverage? Then what, Boog? Shift funds from the classroom, or raise a property tax? –
I actually would like to see more of the cost born by the parents and i’ve got two boys playing. As for parents that can’t afford the insurance might be a splendid use for the Boosters. Something tells me that a wide receiver with soft hands will have his insurance payed no matter what his parents make.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 2:24 pm
High school athletes have to maintain grades and are increasingly drug tested by their schools. But heaven help the poor uninsured student who breaks his neck on the football field because at that very moment he no longer represents the school and he is on his own.
And that’s why this law was passed. Schools should stand behind their student athletes.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 2:34 pm
@Mason - Good luck getting that boster funding past the IHSA…
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 2:35 pm
err booster sorry
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 2:35 pm
@Public
I think you misunderstand what i meant probably shouldn’t have added the crack about the WR. My personal preference would be boosters to have a sliding scale based off parental income as a sports scholarship for the disadvantaged. I’ve pitched in to help kids on my boys teams with fees and transportation.
As for the WR crack i basically meant no school is going to let a kid they think is the next Wes Welker or Jay Cutler sit out because his parents can’t afford the insurance.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 2:45 pm
Never trust these media reports. The bill is far different than reported. First, there is no guarantee in the bill that the insurance cost less than $5 per student. That was an early IHSA estimate, but certainly not a guarantee in law. Second, if a school wishes to be exempt from purchasing the catastrophic insurance, it simply requires student atheletes to have private insurance (probably on their parent’s plan).
Comment by Ou of Place Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 2:51 pm
I don’t think the athletes should have to pay for the insurance at all. As I said in my earlier post, the schools (even at the high school level) are making money off those football games. Otherwise, there would be no money for the stadiums and facilities some of these schools have. I really don’t see why the athletes should have to pay athletic fees either when the sport in question is a money maker. I don’t have a problem with athletic fees for a sport that doesn’t pay for itself. But, we all know, football is not in that category.
My original point was that this law wasn’t going to provide the amount of coverage needed, since Rocky had more and still ran out of money.
Comment by mythoughtis Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 3:11 pm
“Those darn liberals, they are at it again. They made the catcher and the goalie wear a mask, the hockey player wear a helmet, the boxer wear gloves, the golfer (oops! forget the golfer). They even force me to wear a seat belt. Things were so much better when men could just be men”. snark
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 3:15 pm
@Mason- Wait, Jay Cutler is a WR…I’m confused.
Heh, just kiddin, Mason. I gotcha.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 3:24 pm
Chicago Cynic..
Yeah but moms are man enough to admit it, unlike dads to some degree
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 3:27 pm
When I played HS football back in the 80s you had to buy the school athletic insurance. If you had private insurance or not, if you had private insurance it didn’t pay much at first (when I hurt my neck I think the school insurance covered about $200 worth of x-rays) but for guys who didn’t have insurance it went far.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 3:30 pm
@Public
I was trying to think of someone decent who played on the bears!!! Best i could do was the QB. Just kidding.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 3:34 pm
@mythoughtis
–I don’t think the athletes should have to pay for the insurance at all. –
The diference i think is the size of the school. I’m thinking more of the smaller schools where the sports are not a money maker. You get down to a 1a there isn’t a lot of money left for any sport. Parents usually have to either pay more fees or have fundraisers to keep those programs going.
You seem to be thinking more along the lines of your bigger schools where it is a cash cow.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 3:41 pm
From my experience, I doubt very much that any Illinois high schools are making money off their football programs, or any sports programs.
District wealth plays a part in what kind of facilities you have, as do boosters, as Mason pointed out.
I’m a little down on all the fees in my HS district, and not just because I pay a lot of them. $75 pay-to-play per sport per kid can be an issue in some families, as can the buy-in for other activities.
And book fees are a joke. It’s a school; we pay property taxes — were you planning on having a school without books?
There are waiver guidelines, but despite what you might hear in some circles, not everyone wants to announce to the world that they’re too broke to pay for their kids’ extra-curriculars. So some kids can miss out on those once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 4:07 pm
@Word
–There are waiver guidelines, but despite what you might hear in some circles, not everyone wants to announce to the world that they’re too broke to pay for their kids’ extra-curriculars.–
Ya i remember those days. My dad told me if i was going to play i had to come up with fees and he would be D@mn#d if he’d sign a waiver request. Lucky for me my grandpa put me to work and payed my fees. I’ve done the same for 3 boys on the team this year. I haven’t had to mow my yard yet this year.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 4:22 pm
Good on you, Mason.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 4:33 pm