Slashdot Mirror
Rural Americans At Higher Risk From Five Leading Causes of Death: CDC (cbsnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: Americans living in rural areas are more likely to die from five leading causes of death than people living in urban areas, according to a new government report. Many of these deaths are preventable, officials say, with causes including heart disease, cancer, unintentional injuries, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory disease. Approximately 46 million Americans -- about 15 percent of the U.S. population -- currently live in rural areas. According to the CDC report, several demographic, environmental, economic, and social factors might put rural residents at higher risk of death from these conditions. Rural residents in the U.S., for example, tend to be older and sicker than their urban counterparts, and have higher rates of cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, and obesity. People living in rural areas also report less leisure-time physical activity and lower seatbelt use than their those living in urban areas and have higher rates of poverty, less access to health care, and are less likely to have health insurance. Specifically, the report found that in 2014, deaths among rural Americans included: 25,000 from heart disease; 19,000 from cancer; 12,000 from unintentional injuries; 11,000 from chronic lower respiratory disease; 4,000 from stroke. The percentages of deaths that were potentially preventable were higher in rural areas than in urban areas, the authors report. For the study, the researchers analyzed numbers from a national database. The CDC suggests to help close the gap, health care providers in rural areas can: Screen patients for high blood pressure; Increase cancer prevention and early detection; Encourage physical activity and healthy eating; Promote smoking cessation; Promote motor vehicle safety; Engage in safer prescribing of opioids for pain.
I grew up on a farm. when the weather was decent you could walk a lot outdoors. But if it was raining it could take a while until the ground was firm enough to walk on. That could go on for weeks sometimes even during the summer. During winter and spring the ground could be wet every where all the time. The instance the ground drys out in the spring is usually time to plant.
And yet I can't even begin to count the number of patients I have that now have insurance and get care instead of having to apply for charity care or Medicaid.
Would single-payer have been better? Yeah, maybe because frankly I hate insurance companies are horrible since they focus on profit rather than helping patients. But the government wasn't going to allow single payer. Probably not Democrats and certainly not Republicans.
So you certainly seem to have your own anecdotal opinions that the ACA didn't help anyone. I have my own anecdotal opinions that it did. Sure, I'm of the belief that my direct experience providing care for patients with complex medical conditions gives me some perspective...but I don't think we have any meaningful way of comparing data sets.
You have no idea how any of that works.
Rural people pay taxes too. Those taxes pay for the infrastructure out there, roads, services, etc. People in far out rural areas know what they are in for if they need a hospital and know that it will take them 30-60 minutes or more to get to those services. Also, without rural industry, well you'd 1) starve 2) have no building materials 3) have no clothes 4) have no materials to make anything else with so you'd be without a car, technology and everything else you own. Everything you have is derived from rural areas, everything.
There are actual budget studies that look at this. Yes you pay taxes. No you do not pay as much in taxes as you receive in assistance. This is routinely shown county by county across a broad range of states.
Rural America is a net consumer of tax dollars. Cities are net donors.
For instance, out here in Washington we have a classic set up. Seattle and "the West" vs "the East". The "reviled urbanite scum" are throwing tax dollars hand over fist at rural citizens of Eastern Washington.
"In the 2007 fiscal year, King County contributed just over $6 billion to the state's tax coffers, according to the state. That year it received $3.5 billion from the general fund, for an expenses to revenue ratio of 0.59. The five counties which fared the worst in terms of getting tax money back compared to monies put in were: San Juan (0.41), King, Skagit (0.75), Jefferson (0.82) and Island (0.81).
The five counties getting the biggest bang out of their tax bucks were Whitman County, which paid $52.3 million in state taxes in 2007 but got $252 million back, for a ratio of 4.82. Whitman, in the southeastern part of the state, is home to Washington State University. Next is Thurston County, home to the state capital, with an expenses to revenue ratio of 3.17, then Lincoln County (2.54), Ferry (2.40) and Garfield (2.25). Lincoln, Ferry and Garfield are all small counties in Eastern Washington.
No county in Eastern Washington pays more in state general fund taxes than it receives back in expenditures. In the more populous western part of the state, seven counties contribute more than they get in return (Island, Jefferson, King San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish and Whatcom)."
I've been self-employed for a while, so I've paid for my own health insurance for a couple decades. My experience mirrors OP's. My health insurance cost has increased about 2.5x since the ACA was implemented (vs 1.1068x increase in the CPI) . My deductible has gone up (though roughly in pace with CPI). Vision coverage was dropped. My prescription coverage option tripled in price. And my insurer just switched from being a PPO (I can visit any doctor in their network including multiple doctors if I want) to an EPO (I have to pick one doctor in their network, and s/he has total control over if I can visit a specialist - no real point getting this over an HMO now).
Looking over my past premiums, there was a 18% increase from 2014 to 2015. A 24% increase from 2015 to 2016. And a 18% increase from 2016 to 2017. So that may be why your link found such a small increase in premiums. The bulk of the rise in my premiums has been since 2014, when the stats used by Factcheck.org ended. Crunching the numbers, my premiums rose 47% between 2010-2014 (average 8% per year), but 73% from 2015-2017 (average 20% per year).
Anyway, that's just my experience. I'm curious what other people have seen.
Obamacare wasn't much of an answer to America's medical problems, but it is also not much of a problem. It has helped at the margins. Unfortunately, it has helped the insurance companies more than it should have, but that's called politics.
I eagerly await Mr. Trump and his Republican colleague's attempt at improving things.
The problem is,
The Republicans are responsible for the state of the ACA. They stalled it and refused to pass it until it was in a sufficiently neutered state that it couldn't succeed. Basically, the current ACA is what the republicans did in an attempt to "improve" things.
Hey, but I've lived in two nations with working universal health systems.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.