The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
insignificance being wether or not the US is ranked 37th or 30th, we can agree its one of the two or somewhere in between,
This is merely a link to the rankings, not the original WHO analysis. May I ask you some serious questions here? When you see a ranking like this, do you just take it to be true because it as posted on a website? Did you actually read the WHO report upon which this ranking is based? Did you think through their methodology at all? Do you understand how they came up with these rankings?
Here is the link to the actual report:
PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS
Here is a letter that Dr. Phillip Musgrove wrote to the New England Journal of Medicine about this report. You might wonder who Dr. Musgrove is--he was one of the editors of the WHO report. He writes,
"In their Perspective article (Jan. 14 issue),1 Murray and Frenk review a number of indicators of the relatively poor state of the population's health in the United States. Most, if not all, of this information is well known to readers of the Journal, and the authors' use of it is not objectionable. However, Murray and Frenk begin their discussion by referring to the World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, from the World Health Organization (WHO), which ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, and this is objectionable. (I was editor-in-chief of the World Health Report 2000 but had no control over the rankings of health systems.) Fully 61% of the numbers that went into that ranking exercise were not observed but simply imputed from regressions based on as few as 30 actual estimates from among the 191 WHO member countries. Where the United States is concerned, data were available only for life expectancy and child survival, which together account for only 50% of the attainment measure. Moreover, the “responsiveness” component of attainment cannot be compared across countries, and the estimates of responsiveness for some countries were manipulated. This is not simply a problem of incomplete, inaccurate, or noncomparable data; there are also sound reasons to mistrust the conceptual framework behind the estimates, since it presupposes a production function for health system outcomes that depends only on a country's expenditure on health and its level of schooling, ignoring all cultural, geographic, and historical factors.2
The number 37 is meaningless, but it continues to be cited, for four reasons. First, people would like to trust the WHO and presume that the organization must know what it is talking about. Second, very few people are aware of the reason why in this case that trust is misplaced, partly because the explanation was published 3 years after the report containing the ranking. Third, numbers confer a spurious precision, appealing even to people who have no idea where the numbers came from. Finally, those persons responsible for the number continue to peddle it anyway. To quote Wolfgang Pauli's dismissal of a theory opposed to quantum mechanics, “Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!” Analyzing the failings of health systems can be valuable; making up rankings among them is not. It is long past time for this zombie number to disappear from circulation."
infant mortality rates aren't objective. either the baby dies or it does not. and they can write that **** down and calculate which countries have a better birth rate. its not an opinion. and they keep track and rate.
As I stated previously, you have no understanding of what you're discussing. It's not true that they simply record dead babies and add them up. The reality is that there exist specific sets of criteria that are applied in determining whether the death will be counted or not. My point is that these sets of criteria are not the same across countries. A valid, meaningful comparison is impossible. Add to this that the mother's behaviors, eating habits, etc., also affect this outcome and the comparison becomes even more invalid. What I find perplexing is how people like you fall prey to accepting these obviously flawed arguments. Please state why you reject standard statistical requirements for valid comparisons.
either you are 80 and alive or you're not. its a simple stat to keep. i can make an assumption based on longevity. say people in mexico city live to be 40, on average...maybe it isnt' a health care issue that is the reason why, but you can still be sure there is a problem. that's what this is measuring.
Again, please explain why you believe apples to oranges comparisons are legitimate in the field of mathematical statistics. Every single math book I've read disagrees with your sentiments.
were i worried about longetivity, i'd go to where they lived the longest. simple.
REally? So if Eskimos are genetically predisposed to living longer than other people, you believe you're just going to move to Alaska and live longer? Do you not see how ridiculous your statements are?
the world health organization doesn't make things up. its a respectable organization and i'm sure its facts stand for themselves. question the source, if you will, but they spend their time researching this kind of thing. its like questoining a university for their answer to a problem. its an institution geared towards figuring these kinds of things out.
I quoted for you above a doctor who was part of the very editing board at the WHO that generated the report you cited. He basically stated the report was crap and explained why. I've also provided a rational explanation why it is crap. But you haven't yet explained why you think it is valid, other than to profess your worship for the WHO. Do you just blindly do as your told and think what people to tell you to think in life?
when 53 million are without coverage.....i agree not a majority, there is a still a very big problem.
Health coverage has nothing to do with health care, which has nothing to do with medical care. Do you really have a problem distinguishing between these three different things?
Did you know that the United States spends more money on health care per capita than any other country?