Gove Co. First in Kansas Health Ratings

Joined: Nov 28, 2007

Comments: 1648

Judged:

Not surprising. Gove county is rural; full of hard working farmers with wives who actually still know how to cook without using a microwave. Wyandotte county is full of welfare rodents and people who would starve without pre-cooked meals at the grocery store.

Patriot AKA Bozo

Judged:

earlpittsamurican wrote:

Not surprising. Gove county is rural; full of hard working farmers with wives who actually still know how to cook without using a microwave. Wyandotte county is full of welfare rodents and people who would starve without pre-cooked meals at the grocery store.

You may have a point. However, Montgomery, Woodson, Montgomery and Labette counties are all very rural and they rank in the lowest five counties. Geary is also in the lower five but that may be because of Fort Riley. As a matter of fact, nine of the lowest ten counties were in southeastern Kansas.

Four of the five healthiest counties were in the sparsely populated High Plains part of the state where the population tends to be older. But Johnson is the other county in the top five and is one of the state’s most densely populated. So, I think there needs to be a little more study before we can make characterizations about population density or rural life.

Joined: Nov 28, 2007

Comments: 1648

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
You may have a point. However, Montgomery, Woodson, Montgomery and Labette counties are all very rural and they rank in the lowest five counties. Geary is also in the lower five but that may be because of Fort Riley. As a matter of fact, nine of the lowest ten counties were in southeastern Kansas.
Four of the five healthiest counties were in the sparsely populated High Plains part of the state where the population tends to be older. But Johnson is the other county in the top five and is one of the state’s most densely populated. So, I think there needs to be a little more study before we can make characterizations about population density or rural life.

Let me preface your counties just a tad, since I live in the area. Woodson County has long been the poorest in the state with little to no industry. Poverty equates with poor health.
Montgomery County is much less rural than most in SE KS. With Independence, Coffeyville, and Caney there are over 50,000 people in that county. And a large number of them are working poor. Labette County is home to a very large drug and gang problem. Johnson County is the wealthiest county in the state. And that is going to go hand in hand with health. Gove County, I think you'll also find, is home to fairly wealthy people, relatively speaking. I think you'll find that the healthier people are 1. taking a little pride in themselves, 2. better educated, 3. drug free, and 4. working at an above poverty level job.

Patriot AKA Bozo

earlpittsamurican wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me preface your counties just a tad, since I live in the area. Woodson County has long been the poorest in the state with little to no industry. Poverty equates with poor health.
Montgomery County is much less rural than most in SE KS. With Independence, Coffeyville, and Caney there are over 50,000 people in that county. And a large number of them are working poor. Labette County is home to a very large drug and gang problem. Johnson County is the wealthiest county in the state. And that is going to go hand in hand with health. Gove County, I think you'll also find, is home to fairly wealthy people, relatively speaking. I think you'll find that the healthier people are 1. taking a little pride in themselves, 2. better educated, 3. drug free, and 4. working at an above poverty level job.

Yes, I am familiar with SE Kansas. My wife grew up in Elk City and Independence, KS. I think that you are about correct in your assessments. The major reason that SE Kansas is near poverty is that the farming communities have collapsed due to low incomes from agriculture. These areas were largely farming communities.

Poverty and health go hand in hand. Many of the working poor in SE Kansas cannot afford health insurance and many of the smaller employers cannot afford to provide insurance for their workers. You see, those on welfare get health care, it is the poorly paid workers, many who are very good workers, who are left out.

Joined: Nov 28, 2007

Comments: 1648

And those like me, who just think we're protected. Until you get a bill for $10,000 for a one night stay in the hospital, $4,000 of which is your responsibility.

Patriot AKA Bozo

earlpittsamurican wrote:

And those like me, who just think we're protected. Until you get a bill for $10,000 for a one night stay in the hospital,$4,000 of which is your responsibility.

Understand. My wife has a condition and we couldn't get her private insurance after I lost my insurance when the company I was working for terminated US facilities, even though I had continual health insurance coverage for many years. Her insurance is $5000 deductible with 80% coverage through the Kansas high risk insurance pool.$500+ monthly premiums with no drug coverage. Her drug bill is not as expensive as some, around $300 per mo.

One reason for our problem is that private insurance is allowed to choose only healthy people to insure. Another is that those working folks who cannot afford insurance have to go to the emergency room at the hospital which must be paid for by money from the paying customers.

Our health system leaves a lot to be desired. Statistics that I have seen show that our national cost is higher than any other industrialized country by a large margin. Also the World Health Organization ranks our health system as about 27th.

Joined: Nov 28, 2007

Comments: 1648

I read an article last night about health costs around the nation. In a county in Texas, can't remember which one, Medicare costs were around $15000 per year per recipient. Per capita income in that county was $12,000. In Rochester MN, where the Mayo Clinic is, medicare costs were, I think, $6800 per recipient. The difference was in the way patients were handled. The Mayo Clinic doesn't do tests, and procedures that are basically just income generators like most of the country. The doctors worked on a salary instead of essentially a commission plan. If we could get the doctors around the country to work together to make patients humans again instead of profit centers, our health care costs would drop dramatically. Huge medical groups controlling our health care is a large part of the problem. When I was young, my Doc not only examined me but also dispensed medications. Doc Millie, as we called her, understood that we had only so much capital to work with and did her best to provide good health care that wouldn't break us. My Dad and Mom both lived well into their 80's with that kind of care.

Patriot AKA Bozo

earlpittsamurican wrote:

I read an article last night about health costs around the nation. In a county in Texas, can't remember which one, Medicare costs were around $15000 per year per recipient. Per capita income in that county was $12,000. In Rochester MN, where the Mayo Clinic is, medicare costs were, I think,$6800 per recipient. The difference was in the way patients were handled. The Mayo Clinic doesn't do tests, and procedures that are basically just income generators like most of the country. The doctors worked on a salary instead of essentially a commission plan. If we could get the doctors around the country to work together to make patients humans again instead of profit centers, our health care costs would drop dramatically. Huge medical groups controlling our health care is a large part of the problem. When I was young, my Doc not only examined me but also dispensed medications. Doc Millie, as we called her, understood that we had only so much capital to work with and did her best to provide good health care that wouldn't break us. My Dad and Mom both lived well into their 80's with that kind of care.

I agree. Too many hands in the pot. Capitalism seems to have a problem when it comes to providing existential services. It is too easy to hold customers hostage because there is no other alternative.

It makes little difference whether I pay premiums and fees to insurance companies and health care facilities or pay a tax, if the outcome improves with either. Right now, statistics show that a one payer system is the best.

At one time I was absolutely against a national health program. I now understand that I was wrong. Statistics bear it out, that government plans are more efficient and cost effective than our hodgepodge.

Joined: Nov 28, 2007

Comments: 1648

A problem I have with nationalized health care is who runs it. I have little to no faith in the idiots we've put in charge. I could very well see the elderly being denied health care because of their age. I would prefer breaking up the medical giants and going back to the small town type clinic with a true humanitarian doctor at the helm.

Patriot AKA Bozo

Judged:

earlpittsamurican wrote:

A problem I have with nationalized health care is who runs it. I have little to no faith in the idiots we've put in charge. I could very well see the elderly being denied health care because of their age. I would prefer breaking up the medical giants and going back to the small town type clinic with a true humanitarian doctor at the helm.

If we only could.... However the jack is out of the box. Too many hands in the pot and too many lobbyists paying off politicians in Washington.

It will be next to impossible to break the dam.

Joined: Nov 28, 2007

Comments: 1648