rural areas have no opportunity and population remains low just as resources
The text shows that most people are confused when it comes to differentiating between urban and rural areas. I think this confusion stems from the shallow definitions provided by commentators and the general public. Most people believe that the rural areas have no opportunity and population remains low just as resources.
Based on my experiences from living to Texas to New York, I can attest that the definition for rural areas refers to those places that remain inaccessible to crucial life necessities such as poor infrastructure, inadequate health facilities and barriers to effective communication such as physical features and even poor technological connections and networking. Essentially, what makes a place rural and the other is how the health domain is functioning and whether there is enough medical staff to carter for the population.
For the urban areas, the lifestyle here can be described as more high-end, technology-accessible, and a proliferation of buildings and communities to cater to the high population. It is worth mentioning that the expanse of these supporting stems from the high population in urban areas. Rural areas, on the other hand, is marked by a low population density. Their in-access often defines these areas that are far from urban areas to technological resources, inadequate health functions, and poor infrastructure that locks out most of the people from receiving the best out of them.
There are vast factors that make urban and rural areas differ in terms of health care. The most factor is technology in health. For one, electronic health technologies are much more deployed in urban compared to rural areas. Examples of such technologies in health include e-recording, e-diagnosis, and e-prescription. Two, in urban areas, health institutions are more staffed with compared to those in rural areas. Large areas of farmland define rural areas in Mississippi. Other times, physical features such as mountains and rivers