[speechlesstx]

Forget the infant mortality rates, here's the dirty little secret about WHO's rankings. "Health level" and "health responsiveness" only account for 37.5 percent of the ranking.

Take "Financial Fairness" (FF), worth 25 percent of the total. This factor measures inequality in how much households spend on healthcare as a percentage of their income. The greater the inequality, the worse the country's performance.

Notice that FF necessarily improves when the government shoulders more of the health spending burden, rather than relying on the private sector. To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in healthcare is therefore to engage in circular reasoning, because the rankings are designed to favor greater government involvement. (Clinton's plan would attempt to improve the American FF score by capping insurance premiums.)

The ostensible reason to include FF in the health index is to account for people landing in dire financial straits because of their health needs. Yet the FF factor worsens for every household that deviates from the average percentage of income spent on healthcare, regardless of whether the deviation is on the high side or low side.

That means the FF factor doesn't just penalize a country because some households are especially likely to become impoverished from health costs; it also penalizes a country because some households are especially unlikely to become impoverished from health costs.

The other two factors, "health distribution" and "responsiveness distribution," are no better. Together worth 37.5 percent of a country's score, these factors measure inequality in health level and responsiveness. Strictly speaking, neither measures healthcare performance, because inequality is distinct from quality of care. It's entirely possible to have a healthcare system characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone.

Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is "excellent" for most citizens but merely "good" for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly "poor" for everyone. Country B would score higher than Country A in responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having better responsiveness for even its worst-off citizens.

What if the quality of healthcare improves for half of the population, while remaining the same for the other half? This should be regarded as an unambiguous improvement: some people get better off, and no one gets worse off. But in the WHO index, the effect is ambiguous because the improvement could increase inequality.

The WHO rankings have also been adjusted to reflect efficiency: how well a country is doing relative to how much it spends. In the media, however, this distinction is often lost.

Costa Rica ranks higher than the United States (number 36 versus number 37), but that does not mean Costa Ricans get better healthcare than Americans. Americans most likely get better healthcare -- just not as much better as could be expected given how much we spend. If the question is health outcomes alone, without reference to spending, we should look at the unadjusted ranking, where the U.S. is number 15 and Costa Rica is number 45. (And even the number 15 rank is problematic, for all the reasons discussed above.)

The WHO rankings implicitly take all differences in health outcomes unexplained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. These variables were excluded largely because of underlying paternalist assumptions about the proper role of the health system.

If the culture has a predilection for unhealthy foods, there may be little healthcare providers can do about it. Conversely, if the culture has a pre-existing preference for healthy foods, the healthcare system hardly deserves the credit. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking people's preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others, and then praises or blames the health system for them.

Those who cite the WHO ranking to justify greater government involvement in the health system -- like the plans pitched by the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- are assuming what they're trying to prove. The WHO healthcare ranking system does not escape political bias. It advances ideological assumptions that most Americans might find questionable under the guise of objectivity.

If the rankings are designed to favor government run health care then of course the US is going to be down the list a ways, but these rankings do NOT reflect the quality or availability of health care in the U.S.

[ETWolverine]

well if you believe that Costa Rica (ranked 36) has a superior health care system then ours there is little left to talk about.

Yeah, and I'd like to see how many people go to Malta (ranked #5 by WHO) for their cancer treatments.

Or go to Spain (ranked #7) for their heart bypass surgery.

Or go to Colombia (ranked # 22) for a kidney transplant.

Or to the United Arab Emirates (#27) for AIDS treatments.

Or to Dominica (#35) for post-stroke rehab.

Do WHO's rakings actually make sense to ANYONE? Does anyone really think that they will receive better medical care in any of these places than they would in the USA? Is everyone on the left really that intellectually dishonest that they actually buy into this report?

And you guys still rely on this WHO report to sustain your "government-option" position on health care?

Paraclete,

In response to your original post, please read this:

American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care

It responds better, point-by-point, to the "comparative statistics" between the USA and other countries that I can. Also, I would look at some of the original sources the article cites.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Steve,

That CATO article is a great citation. I hadn't seen that one before. Thanks for posting it. I'm adding it to my arsenal.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Besides ;WHO has not updated the ranking in almost a decade ;and has no plans to do so. Their formula is too convoluted .

[NeedKarma]

In response to your original post, please read this:

American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care

It responds better, point-by-point, to the "comparative statistics" between the USA and other countries that I can.

That articles spews that same talking points as you've been saying since this begun. There is nothing new there. Even excon has debunked most of them.

[excon]

Do WHO's rakings actually make sense to ANYONE? Does anyone really think that they will receive better medical care in any of these places than they would in the USA? Is everyone on the left really that intellectually dishonest that they actually buy into this report?

Hello again, El:

You accuse the left of being dishonest, yet you have a GLARING hole in your argument... And, it's THIS hole that's at the center of the debate... Yet, you don't address it.. I wonder who's being intellictually dishonest. Ahhhh, never mind. I KNOW who's being dishonest...

I suppose there's a few UNINSURED people who might think that care is better in those places, because they're getting NO care here.

You keep saying that EVERYBODY here has health care, but that just isn't so. You say people can get treated at the ER, for regular long term health care, but that just isn't so. The sick uninsured people in this country, who need regular long term health care GO WITHOUT!!

So, keep up with claptrap. I'm here to save the day.

excon

[ETWolverine]

That articles spews that same talking points as you've been saying since this begun. There is nothing new there. Even excon has debunked most of them.

Actually, NO. All he did was ignore them and hope everyone else would too. He never actually addressed any of these points.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

You accuse the left of being dishonest, yet you have a GLARING hole in your argument... And, it's THIS hole that's at the center of the debate... Yet, you don't address it.. I wonder who's being intellictually dishonest. Ahhhh, never mind. I KNOW who's being dishonest...

And what is that hole?

I suppose there's a few UNINSURED people who might think that care is better in those places, because they're getting NO care here.

But they AREN'T getting no care. They are getting care just fine, they just aren't covered by INSURANCE. Which means they are either paying out of pocket or are receiving charity.

You keep saying that EVERYBODY here has health care, but that just isn't so.

Then prove it. You keep saying that they don't and yet you have never been able to show me a case where people COULD NOT GET HEALTH CARE USING ONE OF THE OPTIONS I DESCRIBED. You keep saying there are such people out there, who have TRIED to get care using these methods and failed. But you haven't been able to cite a single case in all these months of making that claim.

We on the right, however, have listed any number of cases where government systems have DENIED CARE to patients and those patients were left with NO OTHER OPTIONS.

You say people can get treated at the ER, for regular long term health care, but that just isn't so.

Not only is it so, but I have been a part of giving them that treatment. So has my brother, who is an MD. It happens all across the USA every day.

The sick uninsured people in this country, who need regular long term health care GO WITHOUT!!

No they don't. Not if they are willing to take one of the options that I suggest.

So, keep up with claptrap. I'm here to save the day.

Excon

Nah, you're just here to screw up the healthcare of the 97% of Americans who have good coverage that they are satisfied with in order to engate in social engineering, excon style.

But don't worry... it ain't going to happen. The American people see through the crap you and Obama make up to support your political agenda, and they ain't going to let the gubment get away with it.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

BTW, for all those who argue that the American Health Care system is bankrupting Americans who can't afford their health care, here's a bit of information for you:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/comme...uptcyRates.pdf

Turns out that Medical-related bankruptcies in Canada, where all their medical costs are supposedly taken care of, are not any lower than they are here in the USA.

So all those of you who think that socialized medicine is going to save you from bankruptcy, think again.

What was that about getting the best bang for the buck?

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

BTW, for all those who argue that the American Health Care system is bankrupting Americans who can't afford their health care, here's a bit of information for you:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/comme...uptcyRates.pdf

Turns out that Medical-related bankruptcies in Canada, where all their medical costs are supposedly taken care of, are not any lower than they are here in the USA.

Why yes they are. From one of the sources of the article:

The three leading causes of personal bankruptcy in Canada

The first one on the list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada is job loss, or reduced income in general. Losing your job or having your overtime reduced, for example, can make it increasingly difficult for you to make your debt payments.
Faced with a job loss, one of your keys to survival is reducing your expenses as quickly as possible to free up cash and continue servicing your debts. This is of course easier said than done, since you cannot quickly reduce your rent or car payments, but remember that reducing other expenses, whenever possible, is often the key to avoiding bankruptcy.
Another one of leading contributors to personal bankruptcy in Canada is marriage separation or divorce. Approximately one third of all people filing personal bankruptcy in Canada are either separated or divorced at the time of filing.
It's easy to see why separation and divorce can lead to financial problems. As a couple you only have to pay rent once, and you only have one phone bill, hydro bill, and you share most other expenses. Once you are separated, you are each paying your own bills, so your expenses increase, but your income stays the same.
If you have debts when you separate, your increased expenses may make it difficult to continue to service the debts.
The last on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems. Fortunately, in Canada most of our medical expenses, such as hospital care, are covered by the government, unlike in the United States where medical bills for uninsured Americans are a leading cause of bankruptcy in America.
However, if you get sick or injured, and you are off work for a number of months, even with medical insurance your income is reduced, and that makes it more difficult to service your debts.

But you use the Frasier Institute as your source. --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_...te#Controversy

[excon]

Hello again, El:

This is what the Lewin Group says on its website: "The Lewin Group is a premier national health care and human services consulting firm that has delivered objective analyses and strategic counsel to prominent public agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry associations and private companies across the United States for nearly 40 years. The Lewin Group does not advocate for any policy, program or legislation."

--------------------

This is what the Fraisier Institute says on its website: "We are an independent international research and educational organization with offices in Canada and the United States and active research ties with similar independent organizations in more than 70 countries around the world."

We KNOW the Lewin Group is lying, because they are WHOLLY owned by United Health Care - the BIGGEST health insurer in the country... You righty's have been citing them as "independent" from the git go. Didja think we wouldn't find out?

I don't know who owns the Frasier Institute, but I somehow doubt the veracity of their website. You, of course, believe every scrap of drivel the insurance companies dish out.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Democrats and the media aren't waiting for his body to be cold before using his passing to further their health care agenda. But in the midst of it all comes this bit of good news... Camelot is not dead.

Barack Is The Last Kennedy Brother

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

This is what the Lewin Group says on its website: "The Lewin Group is a premier national health care and human services consulting firm that has delivered objective analyses and strategic counsel to prominent public agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry associations and private companies across the United States for nearly 40 years. The Lewin Group does not advocate for any policy, program or legislation."

--------------------

This is what the Fraisier Institute says on its website: "We are an independent international research and educational organization with offices in Canada and the United States and active research ties with similar independent organizations in more than 70 countries around the world."

We KNOW the Lewin Group is lying, because they are WHOLLY owned by United Health Care - the BIGGEST health insurer in the country... You righty's have been citing them as "independent" from the git go. Didja think we wouldn't find out?

I dunno who owns the Frasier Institute, but I somehow doubt the veracity of their website. You, of course, believe every scrap of drivel the insurance companies dish out.

excon

This from the guy who thinks that Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic and Colombia give better health care than the USA because the World Health Organization said so. And then STICKS to that position after the idiocy of that position is made apparent. You're going to claim that I believe "every piece of drivel"?

Yeah... I'll take the Frazier Institute and the CATO institute any day of the week.

Elliot

[excon]

Barack Is The Last Kennedy Brother

Hello again, Steve:

And, in the nick of time, don't you think?

excon

[tomder55]

Generation 3 is lurking .

[NeedKarma]

This from the guy who thinks that Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic and Colombia give better health care than the USA because the World Health Organization said so.

I've been to Costa Rica - "Pura Vida". It's wonderful. You wouldn't like it though.

About their healthcare system, people can do more reading here:
Costa Rica Health Care
Health Care in Costa Rica
Costa Rica - Health Care

[ETWolverine]

I'm sure it's a wonderful place.

But if you had a choice between the USA and Costa Rica would you have heart surgery there or in the USA?

I've been to the Dominican Republic. I wouldn't get a splinter removed by their medical system, much less a major medical procedure. Would you?

Are you still going to defend the WHO report when it is so obviously WRONG?

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Actually I'm still trying to figure out who Obama is. The Lightworker, the Magic Negro, the new FDR, Mahatma Obama, the last Kennedy? Whoever he is he must have taken a step down in Chris Matthews' world. Now he's the "last Kennedy" where he used to give Chris a thrill up his leg because he was "bigger than Kennedy."

[ETWolverine]

Generation 3 is lurking .

Perhaps. But they will never have the "romance" of Bobby, JFK and the rest of them. They are just pretenders to the throne of Camelot, even if they are Kennedys.

[excon]

Are you still going to defend the WHO report when it is so obviously WRONG?

Hello again, El:

YES, until you can show me more than ONE right wing American website that debunks this report that the ENTIRE WORLD thinks is right. I'm not as easy as you. It takes more than ONE source to convince me of anything. You? Not so much.

excon