Statistics that made me say “Holy shit!”

A report from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy:

Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy, according to a report released Wednesday by the Washington, D.C.-based not-for-profit group National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, the Chicago Sun-Times reports (Herrmann, Chicago Sun-Times, 5/3). The report presents statistics from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth for teenage boys and girls on age of "first sex," whether a contraceptive was used during first sex and the number of subsequent sexual partners. Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older, according to the report. In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older, the report finds. The analysis shows that more than one-third of sexually active girls who have had three or more sexual partners have been pregnant, compared with one in four who have had one or two partners. In addition, the report finds that 27% of girls who used a form of contraception when having sex for the first time said they became pregnant, compared with 43% of girls who did not use contraception during first sex (National Campaign report, 5/3). About 57% of teenage girls nationally give birth, 29% undergo abortion and 14% experience a miscarriage, Bill Albert, senior director of communications, publications and technology at the National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, said (Chicago Sun-Times, 5/3). Statistics for various racial or ethnic groups show that 52% of sexually active Latina girls have been pregnant, compared with 40% of sexually active non-Latina black teenage girls and about 23% of sexually active non-Latina white teen girls (National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy report, 5/3).

Granted, I'm not very familiar with this issue, but I think those shockingly high numbers speak volumes about the effectiveness of our current sex education programs. I wonder how those numbers would work out if the study controlled for whether a child went through an abstinence program or one that dealt with contraceptives. Perhaps these are an improvement over years past, but it seems like we can do better, doesn't it?

Cover the Uninsured Week 2006

This week is Cover the Uninsured Week 2006. I meant to post about this earlier today, but I was too wrapped up in the first stage of my summer project to craft the ultimate guacamole and salsa: learning how to make guacamole and salsa. My lack of kitchen knowledge is almost comical – I blame my mother. Both turned out well, but I digress…

You should check out their fact sheets for some quick figures on appalling number of uninsured Americans. There is also a small army of bloggers out there who write about this stuff on a daily basis. Some of my favorites include:

http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blog/

http://matthewholt.typepad.com/the_health_care_blog/

http://www.joepaduda.com/

http://www.tpmcafe.com/flexinode/list/19 

Warming up to health care reform, step one: understand why how our system evolved

The first hurdle in any health care discussion is trying to dispel the notion that our employer-based system came about because the market decreed it most efficient. That's simply not true. We have employer-based health care because of historical coincidence, no more. Ezra Klein sums it up perfectly: 

• In the beginning, there was a tax quirk, and the tax quirk was with employers, and the employers provided health care: Journey back with me, if you will, to a land before time, or at least digital clocks. World War II is raging, the Greatest Generation's menfolk are proving themselves freedom's ablest gladiators, and the women are riveting their pretty little hearts out. Do-gooder liberals, keen to protect against war profiteering, inflation, and labor unrest, institute wage and price controls, and heavy marginal tax rates on corporations. It is a great burden. But hark! There is a loophole in this here socialism: fringe benefits are not covered! Health care purchased by the employer is tax deductible! And with the GNP growing by 75 percent between 1939 and 1944, corporations vastly preferreth to plow their massive profits into benefits that help them attract workers, rather than taxes, which the Book of Burke have shown an abomination. And thus we had employer provided health care, and lo it was good.

• This tax quirk, this heavenly gift of deductability, was retained by our benevolent government for society's wide beneficence after the war. Then, the newly-formed National Labor Relations Board, in their infinite wisdom, ruled that any employer unwilling to bargain over health insurance was engaging in unfair labor practice, and were thus sinning before the eyes of the council, and could be punished by stoning* or fines. And so the unions joyously rushed forth, demanding health care for their members and their members only, and offering the merest sacrifices to the Truman and his dream of government provided health care. But lo, the sacrifices were poor, and they were not heeded by congressional Republicans, and so a darkness fell across the land. They would soon repent, but the spirits behind national insurance, once wronged, are not easily sated, and so despite many attempts at atonement, the unions have been forever stifled, and even now, are seeing their efforts strangled and twisted by the deterioration of the system they encouraged.

This is the story of employer-based health care, a wartime tax quirk that emerged the central organizing principle of our system. It was a bad quirk, and it is a bad system. And while some defend its merits, pointing to those like Germany, they similarly do not know that Bismarck, hallowed be his name, wanted socialized care, but was afraid of empowering political opponents within the state, and so decided to amass strength by offering health benefits to those in particularly influential professions, piecemeal and as necessary. Tying health care to employers is a mistake, an unintended consequence, but lo it keeps being repeated, and sadly, it keeps being defended.

*There are no recorded instances of stoning.

Modern medicine as we know it was just starting to muture during the 40s and 50s. Before that, you essentially had individual, family doctors providing care with dubious medical value. Health insurance was a relatively new concept that had not been adopted by the average person. The WWII tax loopholes are what brought it into the mainstream, and the rest is history.

Mary Sue Coleman on universal health care

I wish I would have known about this forum on health care reform last night. The article, from today’s Daily, is a little trite, and perpetuates some misconceptions about government funded health care being “free”, but it’s nice to know that the University is willing to throw its weight behind the reform movement. And of course, the dissent is always good for a laugh:

“Government has proven that they can’t handle the simplest things,” said Seymour Kroll, an Ann Arbor resident. “Now we’re talking about universal medical coverage.”