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.
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!
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.
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)."