If you want to show someone's methodology is bad, show that yours is better
If you want to know the value of X, then actually measuring X is better than measuring the average of X and Y, an Z.
Cato clearly showed that WHO is doing the later.
Or to skip the variables, Cato showed that WHO is not measuring the quality of the health care system, but the quality of health care, plus the amount that the country lives up to what WHO thinks is its potential for quality health care, plus the equality of health care (and remember improving health care for some but not for others can make the equality worse, which hurts your score even though it improves your health care system). And if people in some countries have healthier habits than other countries the health care system is blamed as if it had or should have control over people's decisions in life.
They also showed that with the uncertainty levels WHO itself claims the US could be anywhere from near the best to near the worst out of the developed countries.
And if they used WHO's data, they need to show a different result via the "proper methodology".
They pointed to some of WHO's data, but they don't have the raw data they would need to generate a ranking that deserves to be taken seriously, they only have enough information to show that it doesn't make sense to take WHO's data seriously. I supposed they could have created a study as weak as WHO's but why? What would be the benefit of one more weak, biased, study? |
