Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (5091)	3/1/2008 4:15:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

They where not providing there own rankings but showing the weaknesses and problems in WHO's rankings (which are so extensive as to make WHO's rankings close to meaningless as measurements of health care systems). Its not just about the large uncertainty/error bars in WHO's data, but also that the measurements give a large amount of weight to equality. (If health care for the wealthy improves, while care for the poor stays the same, WHO's scores for the country might actually go down even though overall there has been an improvement, and no individual gets worse health care than before). Those are just two major problems, the study mentions more, but there isn't any point in me retyping all the points of the study, the links in my post still work and anyone interested can follow them. In any event why aren't we first even with Cato? We can't be first, or 2nd, or 85th, because Cato isn't generating its own ranking.