Rural health care. Bolonie. There are urgent care facilities all over in rural areas that anyone can use. Rural people are rural because they like it there. City people have NO clue the beauties of living rural and I find that a shame. Caught up in toys and what you can buy. And believe me…I have lived in the city and in the rural. And I have worked for the government and know full well that young people…..under 40…are totally clueless. Get a life…get out of the city and find out what is real and true.

I don’t live anywhere near the Cities. What on earth gave you that idea? I live on the edge of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in the Northwoods of Wisconsin. (No global warming here. We’re coming off of a seven-month winter.) The closest town has a population of 403. Sorry, but my coverage is just fine here.

I feel the same about health care as I do about broadband. You get what YOU pay for.

If you can’t afford health care…there’s always the welfare system. In Wisconsin it’s called Badger Care. And a family of 3 can make up to $40,000 a year and qualify. Health care, like most issues, should be handled at the state level, especially rural health care. I don’t want anyone in D.C. making those kinds of personal decisions for me.

I grew up in what was then West Germany. I am familiar with socialized health care. I’ll take my chances with the private system.

See the facts from AT&T’s comment about their coverage and their tools to check it.

“Cities Supporting AT&T 3G/Mobile Broadband

The AT&T 3G / BroadbandConnect network is currently available in most major metropolitan areas and is expanding rapidly. Click on a major metropolitan area below to view coverage for that area.”

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/popUp_3g.jsp

Sure, one can pay more and get a satellite but that view is similar to our national health care. What we have is good but it is expensive.

And then there is rural health care. We have good hospitals but they are more expensive then they should be and are often a long way away from the farm.

Given your apparent attitudes towards the value of government, I would guess that you don’t see any national need to address rural health care either.

Here’s the problem with the chart. Everyone who wants high-speed access can get it. All they have to do is purchase an AT&T broadband card, or a satellite. Yes, it is expensive. But it is no more expensive for rural people than it is for anyone else. The price is the same. I pay over $100.00 a month for my high-speed DSL, and $79.99 for my AT&T card. The same as everyone else.

Some people can’t get access because of the terrain. This is true in urban and rural areas. I’ve been in plenty of urban areas where my AT&T card wouldn’t work, nor would my phone, because of highways and other infrastructure issues. Out here in the country, if you live in a valley or in the forest, chances are, you’re not going to get high-speed anything. What would you have the providers do, slash down the trees and blow up the ridges so a few people, who may not even want high-speed Internet can get it?

If people’s jobs require them to have high-speed access, then they should move to where that service is available. Just like we had to move to the Northwoods from River Falls, WI to milk cows. Can’t do that in the city, now can you?

As for the government’s numbers—yeah, right. They don’t even have a definition for “family farm.” To them, we’re all the same as David Letterman (See Letterman to Taxpayers: Thanks for the Money, Suckers.) I’ll bet he has high-speed.

I am a farmer, first growing organic vegetables near River Falls, Wisconsin. (Which is ANYTHING but a rural community. It is more accurately a suburb of the Greater Twin Cities Metro Area. That’s why we moved. Too many urban elitists moving to the country and telling us what to do.) The Internet isn’t God. Having it doesn’t make one any smarter than not having it. Don’t worry about us real farmers; if we want something, we know how to go about getting it. We’re a tough lot and pretty smart if I do say so myself.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/2007mapgallery/album/Farms/Number/slides/Percent%20of%20Farms%20with%20High-Speed%20Internet%20Access.html

Ultimately, I don’t have a problem with ubiquitous rural broadband. The question is, how to pay for it. Do we really need another REA-like program or should we allow the market to decide? That’s a policy call and being conservative by nature, I have my views on how it should be, but liberals are in power now and its their turn to run the show.

In your first post, you claim high-speed Internet is the only way to get any “real” work done. I just got in from the barn, where I yank teats, scrape crap, and do some pretty heavy lifting…that’s real work. What you and I do on the Internet is not “real” in any sense of the word. It is, by it’s nature, virtual. Further, your use of the term “real” to define how you work belies an elitist nature.

Why should providers be required to guarantee service where it doesn’t, and as you point out, can’t exist because of the terrain? Why don’t we just blow up the mountains and ridges? It’s cheaper, faster, and would guarantee service. It’s just ridiculous. If your job requires you to have such access, then you need to move to where that access is available. Just like farmers can’t milk in urban areas, some people can’t work in rural areas.

(BTW, back in the day I was the produce manager at the Whole Foods Coop. If you happen to stop by, tell them I said hello.)

Of course I have a bug in my shorts about the Government….we’re organic farmers (award-winning producers for Organic Valley). We were “green” long before the Gore and Moore Show happened on the scene. We have suffered greatly because of Government policies implemented by urban elitists.

Like President Eisenhower said: “Farming looks might easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the cornfield.”

No, the fact that I’m unhappy with my options is not evidence that everyone else is unhappy as well. I don’t believe I made any such argument. Your claim is that a lack of rural access to broadband is a myth, and I’m telling you you’re wrong. Of course I know there are people who live just east of nowhere who have service I’d die for. That doesn’t mean everybody has it so well.

I also made no mention of the government managing anything. I would support requiring broadband providers to provide access where it doesn’t exist as a condition of being able to serve the places they’ve already cherry-picked. I’d also support offering them subsidies to take the sting out of the added cost. That doesn’t equate to government managing my broadband service.

You seem to have a bug in your shorts about government in general. So be it. Too bad you can’t see the shades of gray between the black and the white. Some things government does well, and some things government does poorly. No Koolaid here.