On June 8th, USA Today ran a story about Internet access in rural areas, titled Rural Americans long to be linked (digital version here). That story contains these quotes:

“Just because we live in rural America doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have broadband,” says Roper, a third-generation peanut farmer. “We’re all Americans. We shouldn’t be treated less than anyone else.”

I wonder if these people support or oppose government-sponsored health care. I wonder whether the same principle that motivates them to ask the government to subsidize their Internet connectivity would motivate them to ask the government to subsidize health care for other “Americans who shouldn’t be treated less than anyone else.”

Currently, about 57% of urban households and 60% of suburban households subscribe to broadband. In rural areas, only 38% do, according to a report by the Communications Workers of America.

“As a country, we’re basically punishing people for living where they want to live,” says Vince Jordan, CEO of Ridgeview Telephone, a small Colorado-based carrier that caters to rural customers.

But of course it’s not a “punishment”. As the article later states, it’s a simple matter of economics. Or, maybe it is a “punishment,” if you expand the definition of that word just a bit. But if it’s a “punishment” when broadband providers won’t connect you to DSL at a price you’re happy with, what is it when you can’t get medical treatment?

The article closes with this quote:

“Every time you put a bite of beef in your mouth or a cotton T-shirt on your back, it came from rural America,” Schooler says, her voice welling with pride. “We are one country. We feed you; you take care of us.”

Where is this, “We are one country” sentiment when the question of paying to keep people healthy and alive comes up? It’s legitimately confusing to me. When it comes to broadband, apparently the socialist/communist ethic is okay. When it comes to health-care, it’s anathema.