Several years ago, Thomas Frank wrote a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" In the book, he asked a question: why is it that many of the poorest people in most of the most rural areas are continually voting against their own best financial interests?
Today, I was listening to a podcast about what is happening with healthcare in rural areas, and the picture is glum. Rural hospitals are closing down right and left. One story was about a man who was bitten by a venomous snake, and because he had to drive two hours to get to a hospital, he lost most of the use of his hand. Why is this happening? The free market in operation.
You see, without a universal insurance program, the poorest people cannot afford and do not get insurance. In deeply rural environments, this has a devastating effect on healthcare because there is a disproportionate percentage of lower income in such settings, and the smaller population feeding local hospitals means the hospitals are trying to serve people who often cannot pay their bills. In a large community, the cost of serving those who cannot pay can be more easily absorbed by those who can because there are simply more of the latter to do so. So healthcare and hospitals are doing exactly what the free market predicts: going to suburban and urban settings where there is a large population and greater opportunity for revenue, leaving rural districts under-served and at risk.
And these same rural communities are the ones speaking against (and voting against) a single-payer (or anyone other universal healthcare) system. They are essentially voting to become the man with the bad hand. Strokes are time-sensitive. Heart attacks are time sensitive. Some allergic responses are time sensitive.
So the question comes around yet again - why are these people consistently voting against their own self-interests? If hospitals had guaranteed payment through a single payer system, they would no long have to face the choice of shutting down or go bankrupt serving communities where a high percentage that cannot pay. Healthcare could stay close to the people who need it, in both rural and urban settings.
Any ideas...?
Today, I was listening to a podcast about what is happening with healthcare in rural areas, and the picture is glum. Rural hospitals are closing down right and left. One story was about a man who was bitten by a venomous snake, and because he had to drive two hours to get to a hospital, he lost most of the use of his hand. Why is this happening? The free market in operation.
You see, without a universal insurance program, the poorest people cannot afford and do not get insurance. In deeply rural environments, this has a devastating effect on healthcare because there is a disproportionate percentage of lower income in such settings, and the smaller population feeding local hospitals means the hospitals are trying to serve people who often cannot pay their bills. In a large community, the cost of serving those who cannot pay can be more easily absorbed by those who can because there are simply more of the latter to do so. So healthcare and hospitals are doing exactly what the free market predicts: going to suburban and urban settings where there is a large population and greater opportunity for revenue, leaving rural districts under-served and at risk.
And these same rural communities are the ones speaking against (and voting against) a single-payer (or anyone other universal healthcare) system. They are essentially voting to become the man with the bad hand. Strokes are time-sensitive. Heart attacks are time sensitive. Some allergic responses are time sensitive.
So the question comes around yet again - why are these people consistently voting against their own self-interests? If hospitals had guaranteed payment through a single payer system, they would no long have to face the choice of shutting down or go bankrupt serving communities where a high percentage that cannot pay. Healthcare could stay close to the people who need it, in both rural and urban settings.
Any ideas...?
Comment