The Commonwealth Fund, a non-partisan health care think tank, has put out some great material on health insurance reform as it relates to young Americans.

Their new pdf supplement for journalists includes a section on young adults:

WHAT PROBLEMS DO YOUNG ADULTS FACE IN OBTAINING COVERAGE, AND HOW WOULD COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH REFORM HELP THEM?

More than 13 million adults ages 19 to 29 lacked insurance coverage in 2007. Commonwealth Fund analysis shows that even though young adults are only 17 percent of the under-65 population, they comprise nearly 30 percent of the nonelderly uninsured.

Many young people become uninsured when they turn 19 and are no longer covered under their parents’ insurance. By far, the young adults most at risk of lacking coverage are those from low-income households. About 22 percent of adults ages 19 to 29 live in households with incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, but almost two-fifths (39%) of the 13.2 million young adults who are uninsured live in households with incomes below the poverty level.

For the many young adults who hold low-wage or temporary jobs that don’t include benefits, affordable coverage is not easily available. During their early working years, young people frequently go without coverage until they get jobs with better benefits. Yet Commonwealth Fund research shows that gaps in coverage can have important health and economic consequences for young adults and their families.

Comprehensive health reform could extend affordable coverage not only to the 13 million young adults who currently are uninsured but also to the millions more who undergo coverage transitions during their early working years. Young adults could remain covered under their parents’ policies until age 26. Those with incomes up to 150 percent of poverty level could receive coverage under Medicaid or CHIP. A portable public health insurance plan within a national health insurance exchange would provide a continuous source of coverage for young people who make frequent job changes.

The Commonwealth Fund’s currently featured podcast is about keeping young Americans insured. You can download the mp3 here.

You should also check out their report Rite of Passage? Why Young Adults Become Uninsured and How New Policies Can Help, 2009 Update.

• 2 Comments

During the Youth Caucus at Netroots Nation the most compelling item for discussion was whether there were youth issues or if every issue has a youth perspective.

I tend to believe the latter, and here’s why.

When most people think about youth issues (youth as in young voter, not minors) the two things that most often come to mind are college access/affordability and community service.

College access and affordability

43% of the 20 to 29-year-old population has never attended college (CIRCLE Fact Sheet). Since the is an extremely strong correlation between political involvement and education level, it is not surprising that it receives a lot of attention from politically active youth, but it still neglects nearly half of young Americans.

In addition, the rising cost of a college education and slashed financial aid budgets affect the older parents of potential students as well. College affordability is not purely a youth issue, nor is it an issue for all youth.

Community Service

Community service is one of those issues that older people have decided is a youth issue. The GIVE Act, though a good piece of legislation for upper-middle class youth, is pretty much useless to those who can’t afford to take advantage of it. Community service is not a critical issue to those young Americans whose basic needs are not being met.

Serving communities should also be something that does not fall solely on the shoulders of youth, but should be an issue for all generations.

Health Insurance Reform

Health insurance reform is the biggest issue around today, yet we don’t see it addressed as a youth issue very often. “While young adults account for only 17 percent of the U.S. population under the age of 65, they disproportionately make up 30 percent of those Americans under the age of 65 who don’t have health insurance (Campus Progress).” Young Americans are the most in need of health insurance reform, and organizations should be working to provide a youth perspective in the debate.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

It is strange that military policy does not get considered from a youth perspective more often, since the vast majority of active servicemembers are young Americans.

The Economy

Young Americans have been hit by the current recession harder than most, yet the youth perspective is rarely seen in the discourse. Job prospects for recent college graduates are dismal, and the economic climate is even worse for youth without college degrees.

The Environment and Climate Change

Youth perspectives are heard more often when it comes to the environment compared to other general issues due to the success of the youth environmental movement. However, when the issue is discussed in the mainstream media or in government offices the youth perspective is less prevalent. Conservation and climate change obviously affects young Americans more than anybody else: it will be us and our children that have to live with the consequences.

Obviously this does not touch on every issue there is, but it should start to reveal that all issues affect young Americans, and therefore should have a youth perspective in the discourse. While the establishment may want us to be relegated to a few “youth issues” like college affordability and community service, it is up to us to speak out on the general issues where our voices are noticeably absent.

Every issue is a youth issue, and it’s our job as progressive youth to prove it.

• 0 Comments

Health insurance hasn’t always been the sexiest issue for young Americans, but as the Millennial generation enters the work force (or tries to) we are realizing just how important it is.

President Obama’s plan for health insurance reform will have an immediate positive impact for young Americans.

• Lowers costs by putting a cap on what insurance companies can force you to pay in out of pocket expenses, co-pays and deductibles. It also eliminates yearly and life-time limits on how much insurance companies cover if you get sick. A car accident or cancer diagnosis shouldn’t force you to live your entire life in debt.
• Special young adult policies that will be offered by private insurance plans and a competitive public option. You will have increased choices and increased competition that holds private insurance companies accountable.
• Millennials frequently changes jobs, move, or hold part-time or temporary jobs. Under reform, it doesn’t matter – you will always have choices of quality, affordable health insurance.
• Health insurance reform will allow you to stay on your parents’ health care plans until you’re 26. This will help to cover the one in three young adults who are uninsured.
• Young Americans are just starting out in their jobs and careers, and they often don’t have access to job-based coverage. Even when they do, they often don’t have the money to spend on expensive health insurance. Health care reform will offer health insurance to those without job-based coverage and provide premium assistance to those who still can’t afford it.

We must continue our effort to bring real health care reform. Stand with President Obama and voice your support.

Photo by seiuhealthcare775nw

• 2 Comments

The Republican Party may be in shambles, but conservative interest groups are still dominating progressives when it comes to issue advocacy. A big part of the problem is procrastination: most progressive organizations rely solely on last minute activism.

Conservatives have been so successful in their issue advocacy efforts because they begin the process way before there is a bill being considered or an important vote. They start persuasion programs far in advance; framing the debate, saturating the media, and activating local conservative networks.

Progressives have not been as successful because we tend to wait until a vote to begin organizing. Now, there are some exceptions; organized labor has been much better at getting a head of issues than the rest of the progressive movement, but for the most part our activism is last minute.

Many progressive organizations didn’t learn the lessons of the 1990s. They believed that passing progressive legislation would be a cakewalk with Democrats in control of the White House, a huge majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate. The current struggle for health insurance reform shows how wrong they were.

A politician isn’t going to always do the right thing just because there is a (D) next to his or her name. Democrats often have to be pressured as much as the Republicans. In the future we must remember that as long as we rely solely on last minute activism, we are going to keep losing battles.

• 0 Comments

This month CIRCLE released a report on the effects of state voter registration laws on young voter turnout.

The report shows that Election Day Registration (EDR) had the greatest effect in the November 2008 election in increasing youth turnout.

Election Day registration laws (EDR) allow voters to avoid the inconvenience and pressure of registration deadlines. As of 2008, nine states (Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) allow voters to register at the polls on Election Day. In a 2003 study about the 2000 Presidential Election, it was found that turnout was, on average, 14 percentage points higher among 18- to 24-year-old youth in states that had EDR. EDR may also decrease the disparity between younger and older voters. Before implementing EDR, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Wyoming were among the worst states in terms of turnout inequality between younger and older Americans. After EDR laws took effect, all three states decreased this gap dramatically. Wyoming, for example, moved from 39th place to the 7th smallest turnout gap.

What is so impressive is how dramatic the effect of EDR was in increasing turnout (emphasis added):

After controlling for effects of educational attainment, gender, marital status, age, race, and ethnicity, young people whose home state implemented EDR were 41% more likely to vote in the November 2008 election than those who did not have residence in the EDR states.

The report also shows that no-excuse absentee voting/vote by mail most likely had a strong effect, 23% of young voters voted absentee, however CIRCLE was “not able to estimate how the use of this strategy impacts state-by-state turnout since many young people, such as college students, live outside of their home state.” In-person absentee voting was appeared to be a convenience to young voters who were already planning to vote, but CIRCLE does not believe that its availability turned young voters out that were not already determined to vote.

Extended polling hours resulted in an increase in the turnout of young workers and part-time students, but did not seem to have much of an effect on full-time students.

The general theme of the report is one that we often discuss in the youth political community: that lowering the barriers to voting will increase turnout. Youth organizations should be working with state legislators to reform their elections processes and enact some or all of the policies mentioned in the report, as well as others, such as online registration and permanent vote-by-mail.

• 0 Comments

Last Monday I wrote about how increased tuition and student debt have drastically lowered the return on investment of college degrees. In the last week two new reports have been published specifically dealing with student loans and the resulting debt burden.

The first report was produced by Education Sector, entitled Drowning in Debt: The Emerging Student Loan Crisis.

Students are taking on more of the riskiest debt: unregulated private student loans. Here, students have the least protection and pay the highest rates. For-profit colleges are leading the way in this trend, and minority college students appear to be borrowing a disproportionate share. If this continues, the consequences will be severe: reduced access to higher education, diminished life choices, and increasing rates of catastrophic loan default.

There are many culprits to this emerging student loan crisis: out-of-control tuition increases, lack of commitment to need-based financial aid, and states and universities increasingly spending scarce financial aid dollars on wealthy students. President Obama recently proposed reforming the federal student loan program by having all students borrow directly from the government. The money saved from this change would go to making Pell grants, which are targeted to the neediest students, an entitlement. The new plan would also tie annual increases in Pell grants to inflation. This is a good start to solving the problem of rapidly growing student debt, but much more needs to be done—from reforming state and institutional aid policies to creating better incentives for colleges to restrain prices.

Inside Higher Ed has a write-up of the report, where they quote Patricia Steele from the College Board:

Patricia Steele, a research associate at the College Board, said that “nowhere in the report” do the authors point out that half of all students don’t borrow for college at all, and that that and other oversights contribute to the report’s overall “sense of hype.”

“It’s important to point out because it scares the hell out of low-income students, who are nervous enough about whether they can afford college,” Steele said. “They might read about this and think everybody’s out there borrowing $35,000, and that’s just not true…. This does not represent the core of what’s happening in student debt.”

Steele’s line of argument just pisses me off. If the unemployment rate was at 50%, would we say that concern about it is overblown because half the country has jobs? What about health insurance? Just because 50% of college students are fortunate enough to not need to take out loans (most because of family wealth) it does not mean that the other 50% are not worth being concerned about. Not to mention that the 50% figure does not include those potential students that chose not to attend college in the first place because of the price tag.

I am not impressed by her concern trolling, either. Low-income students are nervous about whether they can afford college because it is expensive, not because people are reporting on the problem. Steele’s solution is to just not talk about the student debt burden because it is an unpleasant and scary reality. The real solution is to lower the cost of higher education.

The New America Foundation released their new report today on the student loan industry infrastructure. Rethinking the Middleman: Federal Student Loan Guaranty Agencies goes into the history of these guaranty agencies and explain why the dated system is hurting both taxpayers and students. The report is definitely worth a read, but here are some of the recommendations:

• Eliminate the Guaranty Agency Insurance Role
• Prohibit Guaranty Agency and Lender Partnerships
• Eliminate Guaranty Agencies’ FFEL Program Oversight Role
• Balance Incentives for Borrower Assistance versus Loan Collection
• Improve the Default Aversion Role
• Make the U.S. Department of Education the Lender of Last Resort
• Demand Accountability and Results for Other Activities

If you are unsure what some of these recommendations mean, their blog post about the report does an excellent job explaining them.

It is clear that there is a problem with our student lending system, and these reports do an excellent job of showing why and what must be done. Changes need to be made if we are going to preserve the opportunity of higher education.

• 0 Comments

Jack Hough of the New York Post wrote the provocatively titled “Don’t Get That College Degree!” last week, where he argues that the increase in lifetime wages for graduates no longer makes up for the financial burden of university education and the ensuing student loan burden.

Hough’s hypothetical model showing the greater financial position of a non-graduate is seriously flawed and leaves out many intangibles such as lower unemployment for graduates, social education, and market fluctuations, but the article does raise an important question about college affordability.

In 2003 when I was lobbying against tuition increases in Arizona, a Republican state legislator argued that a college degree is a personal investment that the students are paying for their own future financial prosperity. This argument has been used by Republicans across the country as an excuse to cut higher education funding and increase the financial burden on students. Former Congressman (D-RI) and current Vice President for Administration and Finance at the University of Rhode Island Robert Weygand makes the counterargument:

Public colleges need to promote and publicize the work they do for the community and their contributions to economic development. Well-publicized proof that they make a difference to the state, and not just the earning potential of individual graduates, is meaningful to lawmakers, even in tough times.

(…)
We need to renew the idea that economic development is based on a quality higher-education system.

While a college degree is not yet a bad investment, the Republican attitude toward higher education is certainly decreasing the value of that investment, as well as pricing out many potential students at the onset. Students are now less inclined to attend ‘prestigious’ schools in favor local public universities and many families are struggling to keep their kids in college in the wake of the current recession.

The costs facing students entering college will put them in debt for decades, even though the investment will eventually pay off, and future increases could actually lead to a college degree actually becoming a bad individual investment.

Some changes need to be made to stop this trend:

1. State legislatures need to stop balancing their budgets on the backs of students and realize that funding higher education is an investment in the state, not just a personal investment. Wygand: “If you really want economic development in your state, don’t disinvest in the very engine that drives that economic development.”
2. Colleges need to focus less on rankings and more on education. Grade inflation is a result of dumbing down courses, which increases graduation rates (and rankings) but leaves students less prepared for post-college life and frustrates the brightest students. People should be encouraged to rise to the challenge, not rest at the lowest common denominator. When students graduate with more knowledge, skills, and experience, their future salaries will reflect it.
3. Increase grants to students seeking careers in critical yet underpaid professions. The biggest example is students studying to become teachers. Dismal teaching salaries make it difficult to pay back massive student loans.

The United States needs to produce highly educated scientists, engineers, and researchers in order to create the innovative new technologies that will enable it to maintain its status as the leader of the global economy. Funding higher education to keep college costs manageable is a real stimulus plan that will pay dividends for generations. If a college education becomes a bad individual investment, the country as a whole will pay the price.

• 1 Comment

The International Federation of Liberal Youth (in which the Young Democrats of America represent the United States) have issued the following statement on the situation in Iran:

After the much contested presidential elections on May 9th, 2009 in Iran, violence broke out as young Iranians were protesting on the streets of Tehran, their natural rights to peaceful assemble were disregarded. The protesters were harassed, beaten and forcibly ejected by the police and members of the Basij. Now, weeks after the elections, riots, brutal murders, torture, and detention of innocent civilians without due process of law continues to be at play.

The International federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY) expresses our solidarity with the Iranian youth and their people in their right to expresses their grievances towards the establishments of Iranian society through peaceful and non-violent means. We vehemently condemn the on-going violence and suppression of independence through infiltration of communications and the internet by the government.

Taking into account of Iran’s unique and sensitive situation where elections are farcical and there is no genuine right of political participation: we view the current riots as the natural result of built-up frustration by young people within a system that does not take their voice into account.

IFLRY believes in the freedom of expression and individualism. While we recognize that religion can be important part of people’s lives, a certain life style cannot and should not be enforced upon a person by state and much more with the use of coercion. We adhere to the ideal that each generation needs to define its own paths of life: the young Iranians should have a chance to decide upon theirs. We are in full support of all Iranian citizens especially the youth who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law. IFLRY continues to affirm the importance of democratic and fair elections. No government should rule without a clear and clean mandate from its people.

We also recognize the invaluable contribution of Iranian women, who bravely take a lead in the struggle for their native Iran as shown by Neda Agha Soltan’s sacrifice, she is now Iran’s iconic symbol for greater freedom and justice.

In conclusion, the International Federation of Liberal Youth calls upon the Iranian government and its leaders to be magnanimous in accepting the people’s clamor for a clean, honest and manipulation-free election. We urge the Iranian government to veer away from their violent and brutal treatment of young people peaceful protesting to express their view and exercise their universal human rights.

While it is not for us to determine the fate of Iran and its people, IFLRY reaffirms its strong conviction that the Iranian people should enjoy the right to express their views about the future of their country freely, without intimidation and fear.

• 0 Comments

Bill Maher’s recent comment that “Twitter didn’t save Iran. Iran saved Twitter” has sparked some debate about the use of social media and its relevance to important issues and events.

Personally, I don’t think Maher’s comment hits the mark. Twitter wasn’t a service that needed saving, nor is it alone responsible for helping promote Iranian protests. It would be more accurate to say that Iran helped the general public realize Twitter’s potential, and that Twitter is one component of a new media toolset that is enabling activists in oppressive regimes to communicate where state-run media dominates.

The situation in Iran shows the world that the communications game has changed. It isn’t Twitter or Facebook specifically, but the general principle of online and mobile communication.

Mashable created a social media timeline of the Iran Election crisis. It shows how a wide range of online tools have played a role in getting the stories of Iranian protesters to the outside world. These tools range from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to Flickr and even Wikipedia.

The essence of the matter is that previously if a country expelled all foreign journalists and had a state-run media, the world would have no way of knowing what was happening within its borders. The emergence of online and mobile technology has turned every person with a camera, cell phone, or computer into an amateur journalist; on location and with unfiltered access journalists have never truly enjoyed.

While it may be a while before these new media tools can change the game everywhere (Africa is still largely left behind, and they could use it the most), the Iran election protests have shown the world what online organizers have known for some time now: social media has fundamentally advanced the way we communicate and coordinate.

• 0 Comments

Yesterday Dr. George Tiller was assassinated in church by a right-wing domestic terrorist. His assassin believes that his act of terrorism was justifiable homicide, and there are voices from the right that are expressing joy at this act of violence. While this may appear shocking and inhuman, are these voices from the extreme right all that different than the advocates of “justified violence” in the “pro-life” Republican Party?

For it appears that the designation of “pro-life” is granted solely for defense of the fetus, not for humanity. They wish to protect only the fetus, not the lives of mothers. They claim to believe that life begins at conception, yet they cease defending it upon birth.

Upon birth, violence against you can be justified.

The apple of terrorism does not fall far from the tree of the Republican Party that continues to justify murder and violence to this day.

The Republican Party supports administrative murder euphemistically called capital punishment: a “justifiable” homicide. They claim it is justified by serving as a deterrent to crime, despite the fact that the vast body of knowledge disproves this. The danger of an irreversible error, the execution of an innocent, does not move them. The death penalty is nothing more than an act of revenge, a triumph of emotion over reason, and revenge is nothing but violence carried out to satiate a single violent passion.

Republicans are defending the use of torture as justified violence, returning us to the acts of barbarism that serve the cycle of violence begetting violence. This is a lesson most of the Western world has learned, but we remain committed to placating our inner demons. Take the following passage:

Reprisals against civilian populations and the use of torture are crimes in which we are all involved. The fact that such things could take place among us is a humiliation we must henceforth face. Meanwhile, we must at least refuse to justify such methods, even on the score of efficacy. The moment they are justified, even indirectly, there are no more rules or values; all causes are equally good, and war without aims or laws sanctions the triumph of nihilism. Willy-nilly, we go back in that case to the jungle where the sole principle is violence. Even those who are fed up with morality ought to realize that it is better to suffer certain injustices than to commit them even to win wars, and that such deeds do us more harm than a hundred underground forces on the enemy’s side.

(…)
Torture has perhaps saved some, at the expense of honor, by uncovering thirty bombs, but at the same time it aroused fifty new terrorists who, operating in some other way and in another place, will cause the death of even more innocent people. Even when accepted in the interest of realism and efficacy, such a flouting of honor serves no purpose but to degrade our country in her own eyes and abroad.

This passage seems like it could have been written yesterday about the United States, yet it was composed 51 years ago by Albert Camus about France’s struggle with Islamic terrorists in Algeria. History does repeat itself, and Republicans refuse to learn its lessons.

These things, combined with the Republican Party’s propensity to declare war without necessity, as well as being committed to making weapons available but not health care, illustrates their philosophical underpinning of violence.

Some of the inflammatory comments made by pundits on the right may have encouraged the violence against Dr. Tiller. This culture of violence serves the best interest of no one, and it must not be encouraged.

Our generation needs to take a stand against this antiquated glorification of justified violence and realize that spreading hatred leads to a society that is constantly at war with itself.

• 0 Comments