180+ rural hospitals have closed since 2005 and 700+ more are at risk. 21% of rural Americans lack broadband. Rural counties lost 2.3 million people in a decade.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page breaks down our rural America plan — but there's much more to explore.
Rural America is in a slow-motion crisis that both political parties have failed to address. Hospitals are closing. Young people are leaving. Main streets are emptying. And the communities that grow the food, produce the energy, and anchor the culture of this country are being left to die.
Hospital closures are the most visible symptom. More than 180 rural hospitals have closed since 2005, and over 700 more are at financial risk. When a hospital closes in a rural community, the nearest emergency room may be 60 or more miles away. For heart attacks, strokes, and traumatic injuries, that distance kills. But the hospital closure is also an economic catastrophe: rural hospitals are often the largest employer in their county, and their closure triggers a cascade of job losses, population decline, and further economic contraction.
Population drain is accelerating. Rural counties lost a net 2.3 million people over the past decade. Young adults leave for education and employment opportunities in cities and don't come back. The people who remain are older, poorer, and sicker — a demographic spiral that makes it harder to sustain schools, businesses, and public services. This is brain drain on a generational scale, and it is hollowing out communities that have existed for centuries.
The broadband gap is a barrier to everything. 21% of rural Americans lack broadband internet access, compared to less than 2% in urban areas. Without broadband, there is no telemedicine, no remote work, no competitive online education, no precision agriculture, no digital economy. Rural America is being locked out of the 21st century by a failure of infrastructure investment.
The opioid epidemic has hit rural communities disproportionately hard. Rural counties have opioid overdose death rates 45% higher than urban counties. The rural suicide rate is twice the urban rate. Many rural counties have zero addiction treatment providers. Farm consolidation has devastated the agricultural economy: the number of US farms has declined from 6.8 million in 1935 to roughly 2 million today, with the largest 4% controlling over 60% of farmland.
The loss of community institutions — churches, schools, post offices, local newspapers, general stores — compounds every other problem. When the social fabric tears, what's left is isolation, despair, and a justified sense of abandonment by a political system that treats rural votes as important every four years and rural communities as invisible the rest of the time. For the full data, see the rural America issue page.
Rural hospital closures are driven by a combination of low patient volume, inadequate reimbursement, staffing shortages, and — in 12 states that refused Medicaid expansion — a deliberate political decision to let them fail. The consequences are measured in miles to the nearest ER and lives lost in transit.
Low patient volume is the fundamental challenge. Rural hospitals serve smaller populations, which means fewer paying patients to cover fixed costs. A hospital needs a minimum volume of surgeries, births, and admissions to remain financially viable, and many rural communities simply don't generate enough demand. This is not a market failure — it is a reality of geography that requires public investment, just as rural roads and rural mail delivery require public investment.
Medicaid expansion refusal is the most devastating policy failure. The 12 states that have refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act have the highest rates of rural hospital closures. The reason is straightforward: Medicaid expansion covers low-income adults who would otherwise show up at the emergency room uninsured. Without expansion, rural hospitals absorb massive uncompensated care costs that they cannot sustain. Researchers estimate that Medicaid expansion would have prevented more than half of rural hospital closures in non-expansion states.
Reimbursement rates are another structural problem. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates often fall below the actual cost of delivering care, forcing rural hospitals to operate at a loss on a large percentage of their patients. The Critical Access Hospital program provides enhanced reimbursement for qualifying rural hospitals, but the program's eligibility criteria leave many facilities unprotected.
Staffing shortages compound every other problem. It is extremely difficult to recruit doctors, nurses, and specialists to rural areas. Rural physicians earn less, work longer hours, carry heavier patient loads, and have fewer professional peers than their urban counterparts. 65% of Health Professional Shortage Areas are rural. Without staff, even a financially viable hospital cannot keep its doors open.
When the nearest ER is 60+ miles away, the consequences are fatal. Studies show that rural hospital closures increase mortality from heart attacks and strokes by 5.9% in affected communities. They increase travel time to emergency care by an average of 30 minutes — a delay that exceeds the survival window for many acute conditions. For the full data and the CGP solution, see the healthcare policy and the rural America issue page.
The Common Good plan treats rural investment as a national priority — not a handout but an investment in the communities that feed, fuel, and sustain the country. The plan addresses healthcare, broadband, education, agriculture, and infrastructure as an integrated package, because rural decline is driven by interconnected failures that require interconnected solutions.
The plan is built on eight core provisions, each targeting a specific dimension of rural decline. Together, they create a framework for rural revitalization that is evidence-based, fully funded, and designed to produce measurable results within five years.
For the complete plan with legislative detail, cost projections, and sourcing, see the full rural America issue page.
Other wealthy democracies — many with even more challenging rural geography than the United States — have maintained thriving rural communities through sustained public investment. The US is an outlier not in its rural challenges but in its failure to address them.
| Country | Rural Broadband | Hospital Access | Population Trend | Farming Support | Rural Poverty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 79% coverage | 180+ closures since 2005 | Declining (-2.3M/decade) | Subsidies favor top 20% | 15.4% |
| Canada | 93% coverage | Stable (federal support) | Mixed (immigration-offset) | Supply management system | ~11% |
| Australia | 95% (NBN program) | Stable (Rural Health Strategy) | Declining (slower) | Drought resilience funds | ~13% |
| Norway | 99%+ coverage | Stable (universal healthcare) | Stable (incentive programs) | Strong small farm support | <5% |
| Japan | 99%+ coverage | Stable (national system) | Declining (aging) | Rice paddy subsidies | ~8% |
| Germany | 97% coverage | Stable (guaranteed access) | Stable | EU Common Agricultural Policy | ~7% |
Norway, Japan, and Germany all have near-universal rural broadband, stable hospital access, and rural poverty rates a fraction of the US rate. These are not accidents of geography or culture. They are the direct result of policy decisions: treating rural infrastructure as a national priority, ensuring universal healthcare covers rural communities, and investing in the economic foundations that keep rural areas viable.
Australia is particularly instructive. With vast rural distances comparable to the US, Australia nonetheless maintains stable rural hospital access through its national healthcare system, has achieved 95% broadband coverage through the National Broadband Network program, and provides targeted drought resilience funding to support rural farming communities. The challenge of distance is real — but other countries have met it. For detailed party comparisons, see the Compare Parties page.
Universal broadband is the single most transformative investment the federal government could make in rural America. It would unlock telemedicine, remote work, modern education, precision agriculture, and economic development — closing the gap between rural and urban opportunity in a way no other single policy can.
Telemedicine becomes possible when rural patients have reliable high-speed internet. A farmer with chest pain can consult a cardiologist 200 miles away via video. A teenager in a remote area can receive therapy for depression without a three-hour drive. A diabetic patient can have their blood sugar monitored remotely. Telemedicine reduces ER visits, improves chronic disease management, and brings specialist care to communities that have none — but only if the internet works.
Remote work could reverse the population drain. The post-pandemic economy has proven that millions of jobs can be done from anywhere — but "anywhere" requires broadband. Universal fiber would allow software engineers, accountants, writers, designers, and customer service workers to live in rural communities while earning urban wages. Studies estimate that universal broadband could bring 3-5 million remote workers to rural areas, generating billions in local economic activity.
Education access is another transformation. Rural schools struggle to offer advanced courses, AP classes, and specialized instruction due to small student populations and teacher shortages. With reliable broadband, rural students can access the same online coursework, virtual labs, and college preparation resources as students in wealthy suburban districts. The digital divide is an education divide — and closing it requires infrastructure.
Other countries have done this. South Korea achieved 99.9% broadband coverage by treating internet access as a public utility. Norway reached 99%+ rural coverage through a combination of public investment and carrier obligations. Japan connected 99% of households through a national fiber program. Finland declared broadband a legal right in 2010. The technology exists. The models exist. What's missing in the United States is political will.
The estimated cost of deploying fiber to every unserved address in America is $65-80 billion — roughly the cost of one year of the 2017 tax cut's corporate provisions. For the full broadband deployment plan and cost analysis, see the infrastructure policy and the rural America issue page.
Rural America is misunderstood by coastal elites and underserved by politicians who court rural votes but deliver urban-focused policies. The myths that sustain rural neglect are convenient for both parties — and none of them survive contact with the data.
Myth: "Rural decline is inevitable."
Reality: Rural decline is a policy choice, not an economic law. Norway, Germany, and Australia all maintain thriving rural communities through sustained public investment in infrastructure, healthcare, and economic development. Rural populations in these countries are stable or declining far more slowly than in the US — because their governments treat rural communities as worth sustaining. America's rural decline accelerated precisely as rural investment declined. The correlation is not coincidental.
Myth: "Rural Americans don't want government help."
Reality: Rural Americans rely heavily on public programs and overwhelmingly support investment in rural infrastructure. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, farm subsidies, rural electrification, and the postal service are all government programs that rural communities depend on daily. When polled on specific policies — broadband investment, hospital funding, farm support — rural Americans support them at higher rates than urban residents. What they oppose is not government investment but the perception that government investment goes everywhere except their communities — a perception that is largely accurate.
Myth: "Broadband is a luxury, not a necessity."
Reality: Broadband is as essential to 21st-century life as electricity was to the 20th century. Without it, there is no telemedicine, no remote work, no online education, no digital agriculture, no competitive small business. In 2024, telling rural Americans they don't need broadband is like telling them in 1935 they didn't need electricity. The Rural Electrification Administration connected rural America to the power grid because the private market wouldn't. The same logic applies to broadband today — and every country that has achieved near-universal coverage has applied it.
Myth: "Small farms can't compete."
Reality: Small farms can't compete under current US policy because the policy is designed to favor large operations. 80% of farm subsidies go to the top 20% of farms. Antitrust enforcement in agriculture has been virtually nonexistent for decades, allowing four companies to control over 80% of beef processing and similar consolidation across every commodity. In countries with fairer agricultural policy — Norway, Switzerland, Japan — small and mid-sized farms thrive. The problem is not that small farms are inherently unviable. It's that US policy has been rigged against them for 40 years. See the food and agriculture policy for the full reform plan.
Click any question to expand the answer.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full rural America issue page or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Check back soon for policy analysis of rural America news.
180+ hospitals closed. 21% without broadband. 2.3 million people gone. Other countries have thriving rural communities because they chose to invest. Read the full plan and see how we do the same.