Old and disabled people -- particularly if poor -- may find it easier to get about in cities, as places they want to travel to will be nearer and there will be more public transport.
And by doing that you're making economy healthier. By propping up big cities you're contributing to feet of clay situation.
Worse compared to that? Channeling more money to landlords in SF and NY?
It's basically people on early disability choosing between whisky on payday and making extra buck on hauling other people like them around.
Face it, many less-fortunate areas are on the bottom already even in developed nations.
Failing that, let them eat cake.
Uber, taxi service, and most forms of public transportation do not exist at all in rural areas.
Anyway, out here in the middle of nowhere, Uber, taxi and (high frequency) bus service are not economically viable. Low population means low numbers of fares means low suppliers means long delays for service means lower numbers of fares. All of which is made worse by distances.
Medium and large cities do have taxi service and public transport, but those are lower priority since everyone has a car.
WRT "made worse by distances" Bay Area is actually pretty sprawling itself. I don't think any rural community will have its points of interests further apart than Bay Area has.
But even these are for micropolitan areas with populations on the order of 40,000. There is still no service for more remote areas.