> by a country mile.

For reference (so someone doesn't have to click through): 17.4 per 100,000 vs the two closest: France at 8.7 and Canada at 8.6

Does that account for the far higher proportion of people living in rural areas in the US? What about obesity, ethnicity, etc?

The USA has about 20-30% of the population that's structurally poor, an artifact of slavery and oppression, but also the wider variety of governmental structures, economic concentrations, and cultures in different states and regions. This shows up in incomes, health statistics, crime, life expectancy, educational outcomes, etc. Probably the most drastic is the difference between coastal California (the richest region in the country) and rural California (would be the poorest state) - see this for more details - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-is-the-central-val....

Every place has its economically disadvantaged, but America's poor seem to be more neglected and left behind than in other countries. A lot of other rich countries have better aggregate numbers because they bottom quartile is not as low.

The reason I brought up rural specifically is because a lot of people in the US live hours away from the nearest hospital - of course unpredictable things like childbirth will not go as well if you don't have access to a hospital.

USA isn't particularly rural - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-urba...

More urbanized than France, Spain, Canada, Taiwan, Switzerland, Italy, etc.

Looking at a few maps, it looks like the average distance from rural places to the nearest urban place is smaller in most of those countries than it is in the US.

They may have a higher percentage of their populations in rural areas, but the US may have a higher percentage of its population far away from urban medical care.

> Does that account for the far higher proportion of people living in rural areas in the US?

The rate seems about the same as France and Canada?

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?contextu...