Rural Americans At Higher Risk From Five Leading Causes of Death: CDC (cbsnews.com) 375
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.
Conclusion: (Score:2, Funny)
Escape rural American lifestyle as soon as you can.
Re:Conclusion: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Conclusion: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 be
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The roads in the South were built mostly with state funds and were built to, in the words of one Georgia governor, move food from the farm to the city. Everyone pays taxes and road use taxes are built into everything to do with transportation. Electricity and telephone companies operate at a controlled profit. All that infrastructure has been paid for decades ago.
Re: Conclusion: (Score:5, Informative)
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)."
Re: (Score:3)
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-qu
Re: (Score:2)
And what would you have without farms, you urbanite scum?
$20 billion less farm subsidies a year. Most of the money goes to big, rich farmers producing staple commodities such as corn and soyabeans in Midwestern states. Most of these States pay less in Federal taxes then they receive in benefits (including farm subsidies) from the Federal Government. Yep that's right, the urbanite taxpaying scum is subsidizing your non-competitive businesses
Re: (Score:3)
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 b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think people in rural areas don't pay taxes? Highways stretch from city to city passing through the country. There are over 6,000 miles of streets in New York city serving city residents. A southern county might have 100 miles of highway that passes through serving people from all over. County roads are maintained through county taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see all the rural inhabitants refuse to sell or transport anything to the cities. Let's see who 'foots the bill' then.
*click* Oops, your powers off.
*click* Oops, your cell phone doesn't work too.
*click* oh, shit, you cant get gas now because you started a pissing match with the local oil refinery in the city.
*click* Oh, that place you banked with just decided not to deal with you or your little farmers credit union that was using them as a clearinghouse.
The city provides for the rural and the rural provides for the city. It's a symbiotic relationship.
For the record, I grew up in the rural farmland... moved into the city b
Re: (Score:2)
Housing makes it all worth the risks. I've seen shit holes in New York that sell for a million dollars that would cost 80K in Alabama not including the 5 acres.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in rural Oregon - Josephine county - where they are no longer prosecuting property crimes (Google it)... I have friends who live there still (because they grow certain green flowers) and have been involved in actual shootouts. They called 911 - who said see and wait if they stop shooting and call back.
So in my example - shit has already hit the fan and life seems somehow indifferent from the inner city. People want your stuff and they'll cap your ass to get it.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Conclusion: (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
access to above high school education isn't a given in a rural area
Poverty aside, the most people who attend a traditional college live on campus anyways. I grew up in a VERY rural area (the nearest gas station was 15 miles away - don't drive home if you're close to empty) and was actually from a poor family but when it came time for college I took out loans and lived on campus.
When I was done I ended up moving back to the general area (I live in a small town of about 8,000 people now, but it's within 20 miles of where I grew up). Having had a taste of more urban life in
Only if you want to die of rarer causes (Score:2)
Escape rural American lifestyle as soon as you can.
Only if you want to die of something less common. While the article is suggestive that the life expectancy of rural americans is shorter it never actually says that which suggests that they do not have the evidence to make such a claim. So if it does not make any difference to the average life expectancy do you really care whether you end up dying from a stroke instead of a rare form of cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or don't sit around, watch TV and eat shitty food. You're so far from the hospital that when your heart attack or stroke comes you'll die before you get there. That's another issue too. Rural hospitals are okay as long as you aren't too sick. Have something serious happen and your chances are much worse than that fancy city hospital with all the latest and greatest equipment. Still and all life can be good out in the sticks if you like to hunt and fish and enjoy peace and quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
It kinda reminded me of a funny scene I saw once. There was a healthy restaurant (it was a non-chain place - can't remember the name but they served a lot of vegetarian dishes and almost nothing fried). Next to it was a Captain D's.
Despite the fact that one was supposed to be good for you and one was supposed to kill you, everyone at the Captain D's was 65+ and it seemed like it was almost all 20-somethings going into the health food place.
I'm not saying it's not bad for you, but those old people still go
Re:Conclusion: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey everyone, watch THIS"! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's "Hold my beer and watch this."
Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it has helped the insurance companies more than it should have, but that's called politics.
No, that's called "The affordable care act". This was its intent from the very beginning, when republicans invented it.
I eagerly await Mr. Trump and his Republican colleague's attempt at improving things.
In the same way you await a train wreck? Or are you simply expecting to wait eternally? Because I have yet to see a republican attempt to improve anything.
Re: Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate insurance companies are horrible since they focus on profit rather than helping patients
The pharmacy and medical treatment companies necessarily focus on profit... And guess what? We have an incredible array of treatment options and medical advances that we would never have if the medical field was occupied only but those concerned solely on helping patients.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
OK (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:OK (Score:4)
which leads me believe that the ACA was on the right path with defining certain standards that insurance companies have meet
Wrong. No track which includes the insurance companies is the right track. They are evil, and should be destroyed. They have no reason to exist but to profit from the suffering of others. Remember when people were all worried about "Death Panels" that the ACA would supposedly create? Those people are spectacularly stupid useful idiots. We already have death panels. They are called "insurance companies".
Re: (Score:3)
I do not, though, think that anyone trying to make a buck is evil.
Anyone trying to make a buck on health care without doing anything to provide health care is evil. That includes everyone who owns, invests in, or works for a health insurance company. It doesn't include professionals actually providing health care; they are not automatically evil; they are evil only if they are only in it for the money. Then they are certainly doing a bad job.
Re: Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
First of all the OP was talking about employer-provided health care which is all together different then people covered directly under the ACA marketplace plans.
Second. Comparing Private-insurance pre ACA plans with post ACA is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The ACA set requirements on the minimum plans must cover as well as ban common tactics like lifetime limits, which kept premiums down but made the plans all but useless for common but expensive ailments like heart disease and cancer. Treatment f
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So you are saying you don't like the political discourse here? You don't like one side complaining about the politics of your side?
Maybe you need a safe space...
Re: Amazing (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude it goes both ways you know. Have you read the average commentator on Breitbart?
Re: Amazing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we don't like people like you who come in here and threaten to kill people.
Is that some sort of 'have you stopped beating your wife' comment? I didn't notice the GP commenter threatening to kill anybody.
Perhaps you didn't see who I was replying to? He wrote:
"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."
So we have a threat of armed revolution, an assessment that the poster says it is a "Good Idea", that they have guns they will use, and will kill those they disagree with.
IOW, a threat of killing others.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea, I say: this side has all the guns, so we can push all you fuckers into the ocean.
Well, you are not correct, and did you just threaten to kill me and others? Let me know, so we can find out who you are.
My mamma taught me to never threaten to kill people. Makes you look like a very interesting person. Already, I am exceptionally interested in hearing your response.
Re: (Score:2)
Kindy GP commenter is just encouraging you to take some swimming lessons.
"Go jump in a lake" would be sufficient. Funny even.
Threats of killing people? Not so much.
Who won the last Civil War? (Score:2)
nt
Re: (Score:2)
civil war. Good idea, I say: this side has all the guns, so we can push all you fuckers into the ocean.
What has become of this place?
Re: Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
Sidenote: I wonder how many more of you arrogant garbage monsters are going to put an ellipsis over the part where I reveal that I (much like everyone else in small t
Re: (Score:2)
You're full of shit.
I left a large computer company in the Bay Area to work for (drum roll) the same large computer company, living in a rural area about 130 miles away.
Rural != "dumb".
You are not dumb but instead, an ignorant fool.
BTW, Obamacare raised my partner's medical insurance 111.7% and hardly anyone in the area will accept her "platinum policy" .
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as a city dweller, in order: Often. Occasionally. Sure, but I won't (eww; it was gross enough re-plumbing my garbage disposal). And yes, in theory, but in practice, I don't have time to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
That world you end up with after you push all us [expletive deleted] into the ocean isn't going to be as great as you think it is.
Yeah. For one thing, most of us can swim.
three things: (Score:3)
Re: three things: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...nonmetropolitan areas might have characteristics that make deaths harder to prevent, such as long travel distances...".
I believe that falls under the "less access to healthcare" bit.
Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't say (Score:2)
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.
Obviously... (Score:2)
God-fearing country folk have down so well at shunning them heathen city types with their satanic "medical science" that Jaysus is rewarding their faith by bringing them to Heaven faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I am standing on a fire escape in 1945, reaching out to stop my father, take the cogs and flywheels from him, piece them all together again... but it's too late, always has been, always will be too late."
Translation (Score:4, Funny)
Rural is the greek word for "Not close to an ambulance"
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a very rural county with 81.2 people per square mile and a square milage of over 500. Not a single person lives more than 10 mins from an ambulance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in a very rural area and anyone who had to call an ambulance needed to be prepared for a ~45 minute wait. And that's assuming it wasn't busy because in the entire county (which is larger than the state of Rhode Island) we had around a dozen ambulances total.
Re: (Score:2)
My great uncle had a heart attack and drove himself forty miles to the nearest hospital, because the ambulance wasn't running that day. Shit happens.
On the other hand, when I was living in Southern California you could show up to the emergency room and wait six or seven hours to be seen on a Friday night because of all the shooting and car crash victims that skipped past you.
Hold my beer and watch this (Score:2)
"12,000 from unintentional injuries;"
Otherwise known as "Hey y'all, watch this" syndrome
The Cause (Score:2)
The cause is fracking.
Among these causes are ... (Score:2)
falling into a combine harvester.
getting caught in a tractor PTO.
falling into a hay baler.
carrying aluminum irrigation pipe under a power line.
falling into a grain silo.
Not considered in study: Any activity preceded by "Hey! Watch this!"
35+ miles to nearest doctor or pharmacy approved (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Urban death causes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If odds are lower to die from heart disease, cancer and accident in urban areas, then what are the risks in the city?
Lead poisoning. In Flint, it's in the water. In Chicago, it's in 9mm slug form.
If you get shot in the heart, does that count as heart disease . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
If you get shot in the heart, does that count as heart disease . . . ?
But the policeman said it was an accident!
Good. (Score:2)
Golly Gee... (Score:2)
You mean when someone has a problem with something like a heart attack or a major injury, being an extra hour away from an emergency room could make a difference in survival rates?
Do tell, Sherlock.
Karma is a bitch (Score:2)
Darwinian evolution at work.
And before you throw, "What are you liberal city-dwellers gonna do when there aren't any rural dumbfucks left to grow your food", you should realize that the industry that's being automated faster than any other is agriculture.
Your time is up.
Just listen to yourself... (Score:2)
You're acting bigoted, stereotyping a huge group of people, and wishing for them to die.
Is that really the sort of person you want to be?
Well it's a good thing... (Score:2)
Well it's a good thing they voted for someone that will improve their healthcare. Oh wait...
They missed the third most common cause. (Score:2)
Medical errors kill more people than respiratory problems.
Re:Smoking (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Walking in rural area. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 insightful to this. It's true.
Re:Wait, you mean the GOP voters? (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I saw some Trump voters being interviewed on TV yesterday, and they were quite certain that Trump was not just going to repeal Obamacare, he was going to replace it with something cheaper and better. I'll be curious to see how he manages that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Thanks Obama! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Thanks Obama! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Thanks Obama! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [npr.org] 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 [healthaffairs.org], 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".
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it'll be hard. A lot of people had something cheaper and better before. Obamacare is better than nothing and that's about all I can say for it. Unless you're young and healthy and then nothing is actually better.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to be a carefree grasshopper in summer, but winter always comes
In about 50 years. "Carefree grasshopper" also has on average more money for retirement (or self-insuring against bad health for that matter) when they're not paying for older peoples' health care.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)