Sexual Risk Behaviors and Drug Use Related HIV/AIDS Infection Amomg Male Adolescents in United States.
Abstract
An estimation of 33.2 million people were infected with HIV worldwide at the end of 2007, from which, 2.5 million were children under the age of 15 years old. That same year, 2.1 million people died from HIV/AIDS, from which, 300,000 were adolescents under the age of 15 years old (UNAIDS, 2007).
In United States, at the end of 2006, an estimated 1,106.400 adults and adolescents were living with HIV/AIDS infection and about 15,449 (per 100,000) of them were adolescents within 13-19 years old (CDC Facts, 2008). Among the HIV-infected population in 2006 in the U.S., 46.1% (1,715.1 per 100,000) were black, 34.6% (224.3 per 100,000) were white, 17.5% (585.3 per 100,000) were Hispanic, 1.4% (129.6 per 100,000) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.4% (231.4 per 100,000) were American Indian/Alaska Native.
Men accounted for 74.8% of the prevalent cases (685.7 per 100,000) for that year. Heterosexual contact represented 27.6% of prevalent cases overall, from which 12.6% of cases among men and 72.4% of cases among women. Injection drug use (IDU) accounted for 18.5% of total cases (15.9% of cases among men and 26.3% of cases among women) (MMWR, 2006). The infection has a greater prevalence rate among African American males in all group age categories.
This paper intends to analyze the burden of sexual riskbehaviors and drug use related HIV/AIDS infection among male adolescents in United States.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A Health Plan Dilemma
Over 50 million people in United States do not have health insurance; this is not a good score for the "most powerful" country in the world. There is a conflict among private insurers, health providers and the general public vis-à-vis the idea of establishing a federal universal health care system in United States. Last month, during a health care forum, President Barack Obama proposed to offer a Medicare-like insurance plan to anyone, at any age, living in the states. Such a program would aim to cover the uninsured, give customers more choices and create some competition in the private health industry. President Obama's proposal will insinuate a reduction of prices from doctors and hospitals than private insurers are able to negotiate (Abelson, 2009).
Medicare is a self-financing system, in which workers and their employers are "required" to contribute to employees' retirement pensions during their (employees) working years and then workers establish moral claims. This has been an inherent weakness of Medicare, for any benefit increase has resulted into an increase of Medicare payroll taxes. A federal Medicare-like insurance is likely to follow the same trend, particularly when over 8% of the country's workforce is unemployed and over 50 million people are still not covered by any form of private or public health insurance plan.
Although the idea of a national health insurance seems ethically reasonable, but many doubt that the government will be able to play the duo-niche of reducing health cost and insuring the non-insured in parallel without increasing the wage taxes on all employed Americans. In 1965, the enactment of Medicare was political obtainable (Jonathon, 2006) because of its target group and the successful social security model it was based on. In this state of distress economy (that the world is facing), employment' security becomes more uncertain because of capital displacement, bankruptcy, the cost of wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) , etc.; therefore, trust fund shortfalls are (and will be) inevitable.
The Obama's idea of a health plan for all may be unlikely to insure all Americans. Without eliminating or restructuring Medicaid and many other sub-health programs throughout the country, those who are not able to contribute to the wage-tax-pool (over 24 million unemployed and a good portion of the 40 million Medicaid beneficiaries) might be left out. But the real issue is the fear of health care providers and insurers of a government's mainmise over the health care industry and the threat of not providing health care services to those who are (or will be) covered by the government plan. Historically, there has been a conflict between health care advocate/interest groups and supporters of a public plan. The American Medical Association has been concerned about physicians' ability to make money when (or if) the government uses its pricing power to regulate the cost of health services. Other health organizations fear that the government will force them out of business by establishing an unfair competitive system. However, those who support the plan believe that lower health service cost will "impose a greater disciple on insurers by forcing them to keep costs in check and make their policies affordable" (Abelson, 2009). Because of persistent trends in the health care system, the public has favored extending insurance coverage since 1993 (Skocpol, 2004).
Nevertheless, the Obama's idea of a health plan for all has not been welcomed by private health care providers and a majority of Republicans. When will ethic mean something in politics?
Literature cited:
•Reed Abelson. The New York Times: A Health Plan for all and the concerns it raises. March 25, 2009. p. C1
•Engel Jonathon. Poor People's medicine: Medicaid and American Charity Care Since 1965. Durham, NC Duke University Press, 2006
•Theda Skocpol , Patricia Seliger Keenan. Policy Challenges in Modern Health Care: Cross Pressures: The Contemporary Politics of Health Reform. New Brunswick, N.J. Rutgers University Press, 6th ed. 2004.
By: Macceau Medozile
Medicare is a self-financing system, in which workers and their employers are "required" to contribute to employees' retirement pensions during their (employees) working years and then workers establish moral claims. This has been an inherent weakness of Medicare, for any benefit increase has resulted into an increase of Medicare payroll taxes. A federal Medicare-like insurance is likely to follow the same trend, particularly when over 8% of the country's workforce is unemployed and over 50 million people are still not covered by any form of private or public health insurance plan.
Although the idea of a national health insurance seems ethically reasonable, but many doubt that the government will be able to play the duo-niche of reducing health cost and insuring the non-insured in parallel without increasing the wage taxes on all employed Americans. In 1965, the enactment of Medicare was political obtainable (Jonathon, 2006) because of its target group and the successful social security model it was based on. In this state of distress economy (that the world is facing), employment' security becomes more uncertain because of capital displacement, bankruptcy, the cost of wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) , etc.; therefore, trust fund shortfalls are (and will be) inevitable.
The Obama's idea of a health plan for all may be unlikely to insure all Americans. Without eliminating or restructuring Medicaid and many other sub-health programs throughout the country, those who are not able to contribute to the wage-tax-pool (over 24 million unemployed and a good portion of the 40 million Medicaid beneficiaries) might be left out. But the real issue is the fear of health care providers and insurers of a government's mainmise over the health care industry and the threat of not providing health care services to those who are (or will be) covered by the government plan. Historically, there has been a conflict between health care advocate/interest groups and supporters of a public plan. The American Medical Association has been concerned about physicians' ability to make money when (or if) the government uses its pricing power to regulate the cost of health services. Other health organizations fear that the government will force them out of business by establishing an unfair competitive system. However, those who support the plan believe that lower health service cost will "impose a greater disciple on insurers by forcing them to keep costs in check and make their policies affordable" (Abelson, 2009). Because of persistent trends in the health care system, the public has favored extending insurance coverage since 1993 (Skocpol, 2004).
Nevertheless, the Obama's idea of a health plan for all has not been welcomed by private health care providers and a majority of Republicans. When will ethic mean something in politics?
Literature cited:
•Reed Abelson. The New York Times: A Health Plan for all and the concerns it raises. March 25, 2009. p. C1
•Engel Jonathon. Poor People's medicine: Medicaid and American Charity Care Since 1965. Durham, NC Duke University Press, 2006
•Theda Skocpol , Patricia Seliger Keenan. Policy Challenges in Modern Health Care: Cross Pressures: The Contemporary Politics of Health Reform. New Brunswick, N.J. Rutgers University Press, 6th ed. 2004.
By: Macceau Medozile
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)