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.
So, no more videos of hicks doing incredibly stupid stuff involving cars'n'stuff if you "Promote motor vehicle safety". Why do you hate them so much that you want to take away their god-given right to Darwin themselves?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I came here to complain about how this would generate divisive and callous political snarking, and guess what the first two comments that beat me to the punch are?
You people are thoroughly disgusting. You're the reason people outside The Six Cities That Matter don't trust liberals, and the reason true leftists like Bernie can't ever make any headway. If you keep this shit up, you're going to bring this country to the point of civil war. Good idea, I say: this side has all the guns, so we can push all you fuckers into the ocean.
1."The numbers of potentially excess deaths for each cause were assumed to follow a Poisson distribution..." 2."...rates are index measures that do not represent actual deaths but are appropriate for comparisons..." 3. "...nonmetropolitan areas might have characteristics that make deaths harder to prevent, such as long travel distances...".
What's that? There are compelling reasons to have government support of rural healthcare to improve access for those who cannot otherwise have access to preventative and interventional medical care? Leave it to the states and local governments to find a way to make a hospital or clinic profitable that serves a population of hundreds or a few thousand?
Nah...just have people drive hundreds of miles, I'm sure that will work out.
Let's see - I have gigabit internet, satellite TV, 4G cell service, acres of land and a house that would cost you millions, and no traffic or crime in this rural American lifestyle as you call it.
I actually know my neighbors, the mayor of the town, the sheriff, and I participate in my community. My kids go to decent schools with normal people and not the psychotics that live in major cities. Despite the article above we have good health care and actually know our doctors who even make house calls. We grow a lot of our own food and have easy access to hunting. When the shit hits the fan you will be starving.
So no thanks. Keep your city lifestyle.
Rural is the greek word for "Not close to an ambulance"
See that "Preview" button?
Nope. Ain't gonna go. I suspect there are a number of different reasons - it's usually complicated.
- Poverty or at least fewer jobs without insurance. Remember folks, most non Medicare / Medicaid insurances in our Glorious Country are based on having a job with a largish employer. Small businesses - which tend to abound in places without lots of people - are famous for not carrying insurance for their employees.
- Aging population. In my little rural town, the average age is older than Miami in the winter time. If it wasn't for the Coast Guard base and the schools we would have damned few kids in town (teachers tend to be younger with kids).
- Poorer access to specialty care. As you age, you start to need the services of various -ologists. Which often means traveling to the Big City. Which often doesn't happen. Quite frequently, it is a conscious decision not to partake of the smorgasbord of potential medical treatments but finances and distance do play a part.
- I'm not sure that lifestyle always plays a part. Here in Alaska we actually have a somewhat lower rate of obesity than in other states, but growing up in the South I was always struck with how many sedentary people spent their lives eating fried everything and smoking. Not too many vegans out here in the bush.
- Education. Doesn't always correlate with health (or happiness) but trying to work your way around the mine field of recommendations these days takes at least an interest in doing so. Again, this is going to vary from place to place but access to above high school education isn't a given in a rural area (see also, poverty).
I'm sure there are other bits to this. It's very likely Bush's fault.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Just wait until you have to actually foot the bill for the services you use, mooch.
The urban centers provide the tax dollars to make your life possible. Roads, electricity, telephone lines, etc are mandated by the government and without that you'd have nothing.
Most rural people smoke and are overweight.
No. Smoking and obesity are higher in rural areas. But the majority are not smokers nor obese.
"open areas" to exercise in
If you live in the city, there are plenty of places to walk to, and even if you have a car, finding parking is a hassle. The bigger the city, the fewer fat people you see. In NYC, even the chefs are skinny. But if you live on a soybean farm in Iowa, anyplace you want to go is too far to walk. So you drive.
Out where I'm at I have solar, geothermal, and hydro power. Comcast and cellular networks for internet. Well water and septic. We can grow a bit of food, raise chickens and keep bees and fish in the pond and nearby streams, hunt on the land. The county doesn't plow our road but our 4WDs haven't let us down yet. And its DARK and QUIET at night, my insomnia disappeared almost immediately. I lived in cities and suburbs until a few years ago, never without a bright as hell street light within 100 yards of my bedroom window and road noise or screaming and shots fired in the area. I wouldn't trade the peace and quiet here for a city ever again.
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.
Yeah, no. They voted to gut the nation's healthcare, imperfect as it was. They can ALL die this way. Mod me Flamebait, but you know fucking well I'm right.
Captcha: massacre
Meh, not a problem. They don't have that loser ObamaCare - they all have the Affordable Care Act care, and they just love it. Stoopid fscking liberals and their socilistical failures anyhow!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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)."
OK I see your point regarding disputing with insurance companies... which leads me believe that the ACA was on the right path with defining certain standards that insurance companies have meet which reduces the number of loop holes found in complex cases. Yeah insurance now cost more but it is better insurance as the average joe doesn't read the fine print.
I read recently about a man who had cancer and was treated and was in remission. The wife was worried about lifetime maximums in case it came back... they called their insurance company and were relieved to hear the words that there are no more life time maximums thanks to the ACA.
It wouldn't be too hard to create a more efficient public healthcare system that makes actual sense. The current one is heavily compromised by the politics behind getting it passed to begin with.
To start off, don't rely on private insurance providers or push any responsibilities out to individual states.
No roads to farms = no food or raw materials to cities. Farmers can eat their own produce; city dwellers can't. Cities create wealth - but how much wealth they create is mostly dependent on how much raw material they have.
Simple example: Why are Boston and Philadelphia smaller than New York? All were prominent cities in the 1700s. The big thing that kicked off NYC was the Erie Canal. It channeled the enormous productivity of the entire Great Lakes region of the US through NYC. Likewise, why is Chicago so big? Because that's where you portage from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi, opening up an enormous amount of the lower 48.
This kind of attitude is why you got Trump.
It wouldn't be too hard to create a more efficient public healthcare system that makes actual sense..
In any place in the world except America.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Counterpoint: I live in a city of ~1.2 million people, ~2 million in the greater metro area. It's not in the US, but I still think it's relevant. I've lived everywhere from rural areas with several kilometers to the nearest neighbor, to the city where I live now.
I grew up in a rural area, plenty of fresh air, areas to explore, places to go fish, all that good stuff. The nearest school had less than 100 students, we had a lot of trips to the nearby forests, we made viking age-style huts and cooked food over campfires at school every summer. We did all of the rural/small-town stuff, basically. I loved it, and I've got the scars to prove I had an active and exciting childhood.
Now I live in the city. I go to concerts, to the theater, to the cinema, to restaurants, to bars, to whisky/rum/wine/beer tastings. I work out at a local martial arts/crossfit gym. I'm on a music quiz team with a group of friends. I've been a volunteer track constructor at our historic motor race on the city streets every summer since 2010, I volunteer at a local rock/metal festival. I've lived here for almost 10 years, and I have yet to meet any psychotics, but I have met a lot of very interesting people from other cultures and viewpoints, and had some very interesting and enlightening discussions. And I love it here, because there are so many interesting things on offer, basically more life compressed into a smaller space. I get why some people don't like it, but I do.
My point is that both lifestyles can be great, I don't see why we should hate on people from a different area, just because they prefer something else. Why the hate?
Eat the rich.
And that's why we need BOTH rural and urban areas, and have to learn to respect and understand each other's qualities.
I feel lucky that I've lived just about everywhere from rural to city, and I like to hang out both with manual laborers and with intellectuals, depending on what I'm doing. As long as people don't act like they're superior or look down on people, we'll probably get along just fine. Hell, one of my favorite people in the world is a bit of a nutcase conspiracy theorist Trump-loving Infowars-quoting weirdo, which probably couldn't be further from my own personal views. But we hang out and have fun together anyway, maybe sometimes because we both enjoy a spirited discussion, I don't know.
Eat the rich.
The problem is that the focus is on the wrong word. You even used the word. The word you used was "healthcare." The problem is that the word being used when the law is being worked on is not, "care," it is ,"insurance.
The emphasis remains to provide insurance, with the assumption that care will follow. The focus needs to be on healthcare.
If it cuts out a huge slice of profit for a small number of people employed in health insurance, that must be viewed as the cost of increasing national efficiency in providing health care.
Excellent example. For fun, I track all insurance spending and compare it to that amount that would sit in my index funds. I am only 32, but, minus claims, I would have $104,000+ sitting in an account right now from car, home, and medical insurance. It would be significantly more because, approximately 65% of that could have been tax advantaged. That is after subtracting my single ~28K medical claim, which, funny enough, may have killed me without 5 minute access to a level 1 trauma center.
The trouble with your proposed solution, would be taking even more power away from the states, where constitutionally, the most power in the US is supposed to reside.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
While I agree with everything you just said, both of your proposed solutions are the exact opposite of the Republican platform on healthcare reform. That isn't hyperbole, the core of their plan is to increase reliance on private insurance and push more responsibility to the states.
Indeed, the Republican platform is to funnel even more money to private insurance. In fact, Paul Ryan's Medicare "reform" plan is to push all Medicare recipients onto private plans (but still paid for by the government, via vouchers) so that the private companies can make even more profits. According to this article, Medicare administrative costs are about 2% of operating expenditures while private insurance runs about 17%. This doesn't include marketing or profits for the private insurance, with those items the overhead is 20-25%. So up to a quarter if the money paid for insurance to these companies doesn't even go to actual care and Ryan wants to push our our seniors into that environment, while the rest of us pay for it (or don't, just run up the debt some more). Ryan's plan would be a huge government handout to the insurance companies, even larger than Obamacare, which was a MASSIVE insurance company handout. As this article observes, the Republican base are the exact people who would benefit most from lower-cost healthcare but for some reason in every election they manage to vote against their own self-interest. It's just mind-boggling, it seems like they would be willing to set their own world on fire rather than see a single person get something from the government that they didn't "deserve".
Enigma
It's just mind-boggling, it seems like they would be willing to set their own world on fire rather than see a single person get something from the government that they didn't "deserve".
When anyone complains about welfare queens or any other such nonsense, I equate my views on the subject with my views on criminal justice.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. -- William Blackstone
It is better that ten persons abuse welfare programs than that one person in need suffer.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke