We're number 37 !!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr Grump]

Unless you are still in grade school, you must be eternally obtuse to miss the overarching leftward tilt of the UN, of which the WHO is a part, the Nobel Committee, and most Social-Democrat governments of the EU.

Either that, or you have imbibed, and accepted, the public school indocrination that denies American exceptionalism, and does all it can to find fault with the finest country in the world.

Did you know that Stalin means 'steel one,' or did you choose it for that reason?

I know whole threads get moved to the conspiracy theory folder, but on occasion a post should, too. This is one of those times..

Your pathological denial of anything bad about America - and if proven, it is a liberal/'the world hates America' conspiracy boarders on the hysterical.

Get over yourself. Like a lot of other countries, America has a tonne of problems, and it not as great as you would like it to be. My evidence? Go to any thread on this board and look at the whining and whinging that goes on EVERY day about your country - no matter who's in power.

Get over yourself PC...A lot of good about America, a lot of bad. Who's to blame for the bad is the contentious point...libs say Bush/Cheney cabal, righties Obama/Pelosi faction - truth probably lies somewhere in between.

And if you think that your health stats put you at No. 37 because your guys told the 'truth' and the other 36 'fudged' their stats, I got a beach front property in the Yukon to sell ya....

"A lot of good about America, a lot of bad..." Fair enough.

As far as America's position in the world, I like to use the 'gates test.'

When the gates are lifted, folks run in here, not out.

They run into Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe, too....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know whole threads get moved to the conspiracy theory folder, but on occasion a post should, too. This is one of those times..

Your pathological denial of anything bad about America - and if proven, it is a liberal/'the world hates America' conspiracy boarders on the hysterical.

Get over yourself. Like a lot of other countries, America has a tonne of problems, and it not as great as you would like it to be. My evidence? Go to any thread on this board and look at the whining and whinging that goes on EVERY day about your country - no matter who's in power.

Get over yourself PC...A lot of good about America, a lot of bad. Who's to blame for the bad is the contentious point...libs say Bush/Cheney cabal, righties Obama/Pelosi faction - truth probably lies somewhere in between.

And if you think that your health stats put you at No. 37 because your guys told the 'truth' and the other 36 'fudged' their stats, I got a beach front property in the Yukon to sell ya....

"A lot of good about America, a lot of bad..." Fair enough.

As far as America's position in the world, I like to use the 'gates test.'

When the gates are lifted, folks run in here, not out.

They run into Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe, too....

So, what's keeping you?

 

[Alvin]

The lower life expectancy in the US is not caused by our health care system.

A healthcare system is supposed to provide care to the population. Public/Private/both doesn't matter.You do not get to carve out whole swathes of it because the results do not fit your mould.
If you have a problem with fat people, then how your system handles that is what is marked. If black people are having babies and those babies are not making it, then how your healthcare system handles that particular issue is marked. If there are more road traffic accidents resulting in fatalities in the ER, then you are marked on that.

Surprise surprise, there are Africans in Europe, there are fat people here too. And amazingly there are quite a few automobiles. We have multi-ethnic societies, migrant populations too.
We deal with it fine.

 

[Dr Grump]

"A lot of good about America, a lot of bad..." Fair enough.

As far as America's position in the world, I like to use the 'gates test.'

When the gates are lifted, folks run in here, not out.

They run into Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe, too....

So, what's keeping you?

From what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

They run into Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe, too....

So, what's keeping you?

From what?

Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe,

 

[Dr Grump]

So, what's keeping you?

From what?

Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe,

Nothing...for 40 years I lived in NZ, and for the past two in Aust...

 

[PoliticalChic]

From what?

Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe,

Nothing...for 40 years I lived in NZ, and for the past two in Aust...

And don't forget- you've got friends here in the best country in the world.

 

[Dr Grump]

Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe,

Nothing...for 40 years I lived in NZ, and for the past two in Aust...

And don't forget- you've got friends here in the best country in the world.

I also have friends in the US....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....

That, when combined with the 'self reporting' methodology leaves much room for skepticism when it comes to WHO stats. Governments reporting their own figures.... nope, no reason to doubt those.

I love this debate tactic. "<insert Country/Organization/Political Party> hates America"

I have the same question every time:

Why?

Please can someone for the love of...tell me why the WHO would find statistics which dilibratly make the US look bad?

Anyone?

Oh, please. It has to be "dilibratly" trying to make the US look bad, as opposed to just propagandizing for a general worldview? Get over your persecution complex.

You twerps really don't deserve this. I ought to make you take your lazy butts out to go through the umpteen threads that have ALREADY been done on this to find the answers.

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions&#8212;some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. The analysts behind the WHO rankings express the hope that their framework &#8220;will lay the basis for a shift from ideological discourse on health policy to a more empirical one.&#8221; Yet the WHO rankings themselves have a strong ideological component. They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance. Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components. And finally, the WHO rankings reflect implicit value judgments and lifestyle preferences that differ among individuals and across countries. - The Cato Institute (They said it better than I could, and it was faster.)

The first thing to realize about the WHO health care ranking system is that there is more than one. One ranking claims to measure &#8220;overall attainment&#8221; (OA) while another claims to measure &#8220;overall performance&#8221; (OP) . . . When using the WHO rankings, one should specify which ranking is being used: OA or OP.

Many popular reports, however, do not specify the ranking used and some appear to have drawn from both. CNN.com, for example, reported that both Canada and France rank in the top 10, while the United States ranks 37th. There is no ranking for which both claims are true. Using OP, the United States does rank 37th. But while France is number 1 on OP, Canada is 30. Using OA, the United States ranks 15th, while France and Canada rank 6th and 7th, respectively.

 

[jillian]

Nothing...for 40 years I lived in NZ, and for the past two in Aust...

And don't forget- you've got friends here in the best country in the world.

I also have friends in the US....

 

[PoliticalChic]

A healthcare system is supposed to provide care to the population. Public/Private/both doesn't matter.You do not get to carve out whole swathes of it because the results do not fit your mould.
If you have a problem with fat people, then how your system handles that is what is marked. If black people are having babies and those babies are not making it, then how your healthcare system handles that particular issue is marked. If there are more road traffic accidents resulting in fatalities in the ER, then you are marked on that.

Surprise surprise, there are Africans in Europe, there are fat people here too. And amazingly there are quite a few automobiles. We have multi-ethnic societies, migrant populations too.
We deal with it fine.

What an absurd post.

And absurd is the kindest that I could be.

If you have any friends that are actually literate, have them read the thread to you, and perhaps they can make clear to you that homicides and auto deaths are not the fault of healthcare.

And, as far as the brillian "Surprise surprise, there are Africans in Europe," "The US has the highest proportion of women of African descent of any first world country."

When your IQ reaches 50, you should sell.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And don't forget- you've got friends here in the best country in the world.

I also have friends in the US....

Yeah, I gave him a rep.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those factors effect every country.

Either you haven't read the thread carefully, of you suffer from ADD.

Allow me to reprise this aspect: Sweden and the United States have very different populations, as below, so this blows your comment out of the water.

So your entire argument is, when we cherry-pick the data, we can make the US look pretty good?

It seems YOUR entire argument is, "When I cherrypick the quotes, I can continue to believe the US sucks." God forbid you read with an open mind, where you MIGHT have to actually hear something that contradicts your chosen worldview.

 

[Dr Grump]

Either you haven't read the thread carefully, of you suffer from ADD.

Allow me to reprise this aspect: Sweden and the United States have very different populations, as below, so this blows your comment out of the water.

So your entire argument is, when we cherry-pick the data, we can make the US look pretty good?

It seems YOUR entire argument is, "When I cherrypick the quotes, I can continue to believe the US sucks." God forbid you read with an open mind, where you MIGHT have to actually hear something that contradicts your chosen worldview.

Move along folks, no irony in the above post..

.no threads on this board from righties saying how socialised medicine sucks..

...move along, nothing to read here.....

 

[Joe Steel]

Either you haven't read the thread carefully, of you suffer from ADD.

Allow me to reprise this aspect: Sweden and the United States have very different populations, as below, so this blows your comment out of the water.

So your entire argument is, when we cherry-pick the data, we can make the US look pretty good?

exactly.

I wish I had that kind of nerve.

 

[uscitizen]

So your entire argument is, when we cherry-pick the data, we can make the US look pretty good?

exactly.

I wish I had that kind of nerve.

Pure unmitigated gall. Most Psycopaths have it in abundance.

 

[Joe Steel]

Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components.

As does every attempt to dismiss them. The difference is the standards for the assumptions. The WHO ranking reflects standards observed by most of the industrialized world. The CATO attempt to dismiss the WHO ranking represent those of special interests. Given a choice between the reasonable standards of the WHO and CATO's spin, the WHO ranking is better.

 

[Joe Steel]

A healthcare system is supposed to provide care to the population. Public/Private/both doesn't matter.You do not get to carve out whole swathes of it because the results do not fit your mould.

If you have a problem with fat people, then how your system handles that is what is marked. If black people are having babies and those babies are not making it, then how your healthcare system handles that particular issue is marked. If there are more road traffic accidents resulting in fatalities in the ER, then you are marked on that.

Surprise surprise, there are Africans in Europe, there are fat people here too. And amazingly there are quite a few automobiles. We have multi-ethnic societies, migrant populations too.

We deal with it fine.

Bravo!

That's the crux of the matter. No matter what the case mix, the system must serve all or be judged lacking.

 

[Alvin]

That, when combined with the 'self reporting' methodology leaves much room for skepticism when it comes to WHO stats. Governments reporting their own figures.... nope, no reason to doubt those.

I love this debate tactic. "<insert Country/Organization/Political Party> hates America"

I have the same question every time:

Why?

Please can someone for the love of...tell me why the WHO would find statistics which dilibratly make the US look bad?

Anyone?

Oh, please. It has to be "dilibratly" trying to make the US look bad, as opposed to just propagandizing for a general worldview? Get over your persecution complex.

You twerps really don't deserve this. I ought to make you take your lazy butts out to go through the umpteen threads that have ALREADY been done on this to find the answers.

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions—some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. The analysts behind the WHO rankings express the hope that their framework “will lay the basis for a shift from ideological discourse on health policy to a more empirical one.” Yet the WHO rankings themselves have a strong ideological component. They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance. Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components. And finally, the WHO rankings reflect implicit value judgments and lifestyle preferences that differ among individuals and across countries. - The Cato Institute (They said it better than I could, and it was faster.)

Standards which are applied to all countries in the study. Thats sort of the point. If you are allowed to cut out the bits you don't like then every country shares the #1 position.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components.

As does every attempt to dismiss them. The difference is the standards for the assumptions. The WHO ranking reflects standards observed by most of the industrialized world. The CATO attempt to dismiss the WHO ranking represent those of special interests. Given a choice between the reasonable standards of the WHO and CATO's spin, the WHO ranking is better.

I'm curious. Do you actually imagine that choosing one sentence out of a rather long post to respond to impresses anyone or makes us think you're anything but a partisan hack?

When you grow a pair and can answer the entire post honestly and thoughtfully, come back and see me. Until then, don't even bother, because you're just a cowardly waste of pixels.