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.
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.
Sorry, healthcare in America is now a political issue. And the Gods-honest truth is that those who need it most don't seem to realize that the GOP has somehow convinced them that it's a bad idea.
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!
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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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.
As someone who collects a salary treating patients, I'm not saying that there's no place for profit. But as someone who spends my time arguing with insurance companies when they don't want to pay for proven treatments that are necessary, I feel as if they're drifted too far on the profit spectrum.
I do not, though, think that anyone trying to make a buck is evil. As you point out, you need to fund advances in medicine, and those aren't free. The number of failed drugs and trials that have floated through here is staggering.
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.
I've had insurance since I was born, I'm in my 50s, and my cost of insurance jumped 4 times since obamacare. My employer dropped it because insurance rates soared, so I no longer had matching, plus the regular rate better than doubled. And that is for insurance that covers almost nothing until I spend 28,000 because there are virtually NO doctors in the network. And NC has NO options, only Blue Cross. We used to have over half a dozen. My cost of insurance and overall healthcare went from being 5-10% of my income to over 1/3. So fuck your socialized healthcare that says responsible people have to pay insurance for irresponsible people that don't like to work. I'm fine helping those that can't help themselves, but this current bullshit is killing the middle class. You know, the people making 50k a year and pay the highest percentage of their income as tax because they don't make enough to shelter it. But then, that was the original plan, wasn't it? Make a system so god damn bad people would beg for a single payer. Guess what? You got Trump instead, so suck it up Dr. Buttercup. You have no fucking clue the pain this system has caused to hard working, middle American, blue collar people.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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
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.
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.
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.
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