Don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I don’t like sports or that I don’t appreciate any athletes’ work. I’m an athlete too. I know how it’s hard to be an athlete and all the things you have to give up to reach your goals. But I still don’t think that people should get paid millions of dollars for that. Have you ever noticed that they make so much money that at some point, it doesn’t even make a difference if they get more? Their lifestyles just can’t get any better.

And don’t even get me started on the difference between men’s and women’s wages. Take The World’s Highest-Paid Athletes. The first woman to show up is number 51, Serena Williams. Spoiler alert, she’s also the only woman on a list of 100 athletes. And, I don’t believe that the lack of female players on the list is just because they don’t try hard enough.

As an example of this, I can’t stop thinking about the U.S. women’s soccer team. In case you never heard about this fight, the U.S. women’s team was demanding payment equal to the men’s soccer team. They played much more, won many more times and even practiced more. But that didn’t mean anything for the U.S. Soccer Federation.

However, this is not my point. What really bothers me is how athletes, mostly men, are made out to be rock stars, the best of our society, the best you could ever be. You can get money and attention just by playing your favorite sport. I strongly disagree with this system.

No one should be put on a pedestal, and the ones that get the closest to deserving that type of glorification are the ones fighting for others and putting their lives at risk, like people who go to third-world countries to help dying children. People who actually help others should be getting credit for their work. No offense, but running around a ball or puck or whatever your favorite sport does is not that big of a deal.

Despite everything, I’m not that naive and I know that sports have become a market that sells. Players are not only athletes, their names become brands and anything that they touch can be charged 10 times more. But, honestly, this has just gotten out of hand. Society’s praise of public figures is unhealthy, and the way that many markets exploit it is wrong.

There’s at least one bright side to this devotion to sports. Many athletes pursue academic careers to continue playing or as a way to reach the professional level. In some ways, sports are a way to keep kids in school.

Overall, athletes are deserving of good payment because they work hard. But in my opinion, society should think about how much they should actually be paid, and that they are not actual gods.   

Photo courtesy of Finance News 24

Brownback has not said explicitly that he would like KCI to close, but he would like to create competition that, if successful, would most likely lead to the extinction of KCI. He believes that Kansas is financially equipped to handle the venture of a new metro-area airport, whereas Missouri is struggling to support the travel hub that Kansas City’s location brings. Brownback also states that the Kan. government will benefit from an airport in ways Missouri does not.

“With more than 50 percent of (KCI) passengers coming from Kansas, we are exploring the possibilities of this project,” Brownback told the “Kansas City Star.”

Another positive for Brownback would be an enormous rise in employment. Right now, roughly 60,800 people have jobs because of KCI. If the major Kansas City airport were to be in Kansas, Brownback thinks that the budget, morale and, of course, employment, would rise.

According to prominent airlines, KCI desperately needs to be renovated. In 2016, Southwest Airlines loosely offered to finance a single-terminal system at KCI, and Kansas City Officials were open to the discussion. City and airport officials see the need for change.

The “Kansas City Star” spoke with the Mayor of Kansas City, Sly James and City Manager, Troy Schulte, both of whom who would both like revamp KCI.

“KCI in its current form is an out-of-date, inefficient facility that makes for an embarrassing front door to out-of-town travelers,” said a joint statement from James and Schulte. As James and Schulte are keen to point out, an airport in Kansas would be “the biggest Border War prize of all.” The “Kansas City Star” has been following the “Border War” since Brownback was elected. According to the publication, Brownback has won several businesses and jobs from the Missouri side of Kansas City and brought them to the Kansas side. The longer Kansas City delays renovating KCI, the more plausible a rival airport in Kansas becomes.

However, it’s the people of Kansas City who remain steadfast in resistance to renovation. When Kansas City voters did not show support for the KCI renovation project, James and Schulte were forced to halt discussions about the project. Frequent visitors of the airport are upset by prospective renovations, saying that KCI is unique and stream-lined. Renovations have been stalled for years as city officials wrestle with how to please their voters, meet the needs of the city and appease the airlines that bring the most business.

An inactive team on the Missouri side of Kansas City is good news for Brownback. Most city officials in Johnson County have refused to comment on plans for an airport, and most of the plans have been kept private. It is unclear where the new airport would be located, but experts assume that the metro airport would become an extension of the two smaller airports already in Johnson County: The New Century AirCenter and Johnson County Executive Airport. These airports are used only for corporate flights.

Most experts are skeptic of Brownback’s potential new airport, and many say it won’t happen. Even major airlines like Southwest that, push for KCI to be renovated, aren’t sure that a completely new airport is the right answer. According to city and airport officials, it is projected that 2018 will be the culminating year for either a new airport, Kansas City to start renovations or KCI to begin to lose business and revenue with no alternative options. Each option will be accompanied by change in the way Kansas City travels.

Sanders argued that access to health care should be guaranteed as a right. He regretted that the U.S. is the only developed country that does not assure near-universal health care coverage. This assertion has been verified by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Cruz argued that an individual’s right to health care should mean the right for the individual to choose the health care to which he or she has access; the ACA diminishes the individual’s freedom to choose. He cited that 6 million Americans had their plans canceled contrary to their wishes and that many lost their ability to see their primary care physicians with the new ACA stipulations, and that the average household insurance premiums rose by around $5,000—a reflection of decreased competition in the health insurance market and the fact that insurance companies raised rates to compensate for more risk in the expanded insurance market. Cruz also cited the long wait times and subsequent tragedies that occur in high-income countries with state-controlled coverage; when government rations health care, hospitals become overburdened and less effective he asserted.

“In America, we do rationing in a different way, Ted,” replied Sanders. He alluded to the tens of thousands of Americans who die because they do not see a doctor when they should, due to a lack of affordable insurance.

While Cruz argued that having access to health care means maintaining the right to choose that health care, Sanders asked, “You want to buy one of Donald Trump’s mansions?” He asserted that per Cruz’s definition, “You have access to do that as well,” said Sanders. “Access doesn’t mean a damn thing”—especially for working class Americans.

As for a U.S. without the ACA, Cruz assured a woman from the audience who was battling breast cancer that her policy would not be canceled because of her preexisting condition. Yet, Cruz did not answer if or how an ACA replacement would mandate that insurance companies ignore preexisting conditions for future policies.

Both Sanders and Cruz mentioned that doctors seem to spend more time filling out forms than they do practicing medicine. Cruz argued this is due to ACA forms; Sanders claimed that this drain on doctors’ time comes from insurance companies, further supporting his end goal of booting insurance companies out of health care and joining the rest of the developed world with a single-payer health care system.

Cruz implored Sanders to join him in a fight to curtail the power of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA).

“Right now, it takes 2 billion dollars to approve a new drug,” Cruz said. “I’ve written legislation to reform the process so we can be curing diseases and curing people.”

Expenses driven by the FDA dissuade drug developers from bringing life-saving drugs to the market and FDA regulations bar international drugs from entering the U.S. market, he asserted. Though disagreeing on the normative power of the FDA, both senators agreed that less-expensive drugs should be imported from abroad.

Cruz did not adequately answer how his alternative to the ACA would expand access to health care for individuals with preexisting conditions while increasing competition and empowering patients; Sanders failed to answer how businesses are expected to shoulder mandated insurance without raising prices or cutting wages. However, this health care conversation is far from over, and these two senators specifically, who are both prospective 2020 presidential candidates, are not through debating.