Social issues in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search
Life in the
United States
Culture
Politics
Economy
Education
Social structure
Arts and entertainment
Holidays
Languages
Human rights
Poverty
Social issues
Religion
Standard of living
edit box

Social issues in the United States as perceived by social justice advocates and other groups and commentators include an "unequal" educational system, poverty, high rates of crime and incarceration, and lack of access to quality health care. Some also believe that the past history of racism and racial segregation in the United States remains a major problem.

These issues continue to exist in the United States despite the creation of one of the strongest economic systems in history, although in a way different to many other developed countries. Social and political reasons for this economic performance are said to include values of self-sufficiency, a conservative electorate, federalism and the effects of the spoils system.

Contents

Unequal funding of educational system

The U.S. educational system is compulsory for the first 9-12 years of education, depending upon in which state one may reside. While most students upon graduation are between 17 and 18 years of age, many states allow for the student to voluntarily remove themselves from enrollment. This is an action which has come to be termed as "dropping out", as these students have not successfully completed the requirements necessary to gain a diploma, and has created social issues.

Although some funding does come from the federal government, it is almost entirely funded and controlled individually by state and local governments, and school districts. Within a state, primary control of educational system rest with the state, which then delegates authority to local authorities. Although the Department of Education wields some authority, most powers concerning schooling remain with the states.

The funding and condition of the school system in each municipality is largely determined by the school district or local government. In affluent communities, especially those with large numbers of childbearing families, the educational system tends to be more heavily funded on a per student basis and tends to be more effective. Communities that are less affluent or have a lower percentage of childbearing families generally spend less money per child.

Statistical information generated by the No Child Left Behind Act, and similar acts at a state level, demonstrate over and over again the general (but not universal) correlation between money spent per child and academic success. The disparity in public resources is matched by a disparity in private resources as well: affluent parents are able to spend much more money on books, software, tutoring and education-related travel than are other parents.

State governments, since the 1990's have grappled with these issues of educational equity. In some states, most prominently New Jersey, courts have ordered dramatically increased funding in lower income areas. In other states, legislatures have acted on their own initiative to equalize somewhat the funding available. In still other states, little action has been taken.

A legislative advocate for greater educational funding for low and moderate income communities in Pennsylvania, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "The key issue is how the schools are funded. The more reliance on local property taxes, the greater the inequality of resources for education. The higher the percentage of resources coming from federal and state governments, the more equal the funding can be. Pennsylvania disproportionately gives its statewide resources to the districts that need it most, but the far greater contributions of the more affluent communities still give their students an enormous public funding advantage coupled with their advantage in private resources."


Crime and incarceration

The United States prison population is the highest of any world country, both in absolute and relative numbers. A substantial percentage of people behind bars are drug offenders, which is due to the so-called "war on drugs", a very rigid policy against selling recreational drugs. Incarceration of convicted criminals for long sentences was particularly popular politically in the 1990s, leading to the passage in many states of strict minimum sentencing guidelines and three strikes laws, which lead to incarceration for life after three felonies have been committed, including a number of drug crimes. Special provisions are given in the case of possession of crack cocaine, where there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. This penalty, the harshest of any drug law, primarily affects African-Americans. In 2002, the Honorable Charles J. Hynes (District Attorney of Kings County, New York), testified before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine convictees and powdered cocaine convictees was 100 to 1. Powdered cocaine is more commonly associated with wealthier Caucasian users. [1]

Access to health insurance

Main article: Health care in the United States

The United States does not have a national health care or system of socialized medicine, although programs such as Medicare and Medicaid provide basic health insurance to elderly and poor residents. For most US residents, health insurance is provided as an employee benefit, leaving unemployed and part-time workers to pay for their own insurance (Americans are basically forced to have full-time work in this sense). As of 2001, 41.2 million people in the United States (14.6% of the US population), including 8.5 million children, had no health insurance coverage. By 2004, this had risen to 45 million (15.6%). The US Census Bureau attributed the drop primarily to the loss of employer-provided plans due to the economic downturn and a continuation of rising costs. [2]

A recent Harvard University study found that medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. The study found that many declaring bankruptcy were part of the middle class and were employed before they became ill but lost their health insurance by the time they declared bankruptcy [3]. In the U.S. employer plans can be continued through COBRA at a rate that is usually double the rate the employee paid while employed. When an employer-insured person loses his or her job due to illness and does not have sufficient resources to continue to pay for their COBRA health insurance, they also lose their coverage.

Efforts to provide universal health care in the 1960s and early 1990s floundered against widespread opposition, particularly by more conservative politicians who objected to government control of medicine and business groups which did not want to experience a loss of profits with the increase of government bureaucracy in the healthcare and insurance industries. Despite a general agreement, enforced in law, that emergency care must be provided even to the indigent, there is no consensus in the United States that the availability of broader health care should be considered a right, nor that this service should be paid for by the state. [1]

References

See also

Personal tools
In other languages