You really ought to keep up on the news - the REAL news - on this topic if you're going to bloviate about it. The WHO measured quality of healthcare systems in that study by how socialized the systems were, directly and specifically. We didn't rank behind Costa Rica because our healthcare is ineffective. We ranked behind Costa Rica because we're not as socialized.
Call me after you buy a clue.
Part of the criteria is % covered. A wider % covered = socialism to you? My God. So by your standards, superior health care (and it is two words) depends on the level of specialness you feel. How enlightening. What color is the sky in your world?
Wrong, honey. Don't even try that fuzzy-wuzzy, emotional button-pushing with ME. "My GOD, you're just so mean, you want people to DIE!" Spare me, and tell me now if 8th grade is the highest maturity level you can manage in a debate.
The WHO report used five criteria, weighted as follows:
1) Health level, 25 percent - This factor can most justifiably be included because it is measured by a countryÂ’s disability-adjusted life expectancy (DALE). Unfortunately, as I've mentioned before, life expectancy in industrialized nations has very little to do with the healthcare system (by the way, it's correctly written as a one word when it's attributive, although it used to require a hyphenation under those circumstances. Don't EVER flatter yourself that you're qualified to correct my grammar and spelling.) and is mostly attributable to factors like race, geography, and education. Still, DALE is at least a direct measure of the health of a countryÂ’s residents, so its inclusion makes sense.
2) Responsiveness, 12.5 percent - This factor measures a variety of health care system features, including speed of service, protection of privacy, choice of doctors, and quality of amenities (e.g., clean hospital bed linens). Not directly connected to the health of the citizens perhaps, but important and desirable.
3) Financial fairness, 25 percent - A health systemÂ’s financial fairness (FF) is measured by determining a householdÂ’s contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households. The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal).
THIS is one of the factors I consider a measurement of the distribution of socialism, because it has nothing to do with how good the medical system is, and everything to do with how much the government is playing Mommy. The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. This is a value judgment
not applied to most other goods, even those regarded as necessities such as food and
housing.Most people understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage of their income on these items.
4) Health distribution, 25 percent
5) Responsiveness distribution, 12.5 percent - Health Distribution measures inequality in health level within a country, while Responsiveness Distribution measures inequality in health responsiveness within a country.
Strictly speaking, neither of these factors measures health care performance, because
inequality is distinct from quality of care. It is entirely possible to have a health care 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 terms of responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens. The same point applies to the distribution of health level. And this is how a country like Costa Rica can score higher than the US. As long as there's no disparity and EVERYONE has crap care, the WHO is happy. Sounds like every socialist nation in practice in the world during my lifetime.
And don't even get me started on the differences between overall attainment and overall performance, margins of error, sensitivity to weighting factors, etc. The WHO report is only conclusive and damning if you really wanted it to be anyway, were primed to believe it was, and are too dimwitted to dig any deeper.
(Factor explanations are from the Cato Institute, mixed in part with my own observations.)
