~>  EC> "Lower cost" is pretty obvious and pretty
irrelevant, since many of th
~>  EC> countries listed are third world countries where medical personnel can
~>  EC> be relatively affluent on a low income and would be unemployed if they
~>  EC> charged their patients very much.  
 
~> Third world countries like France, Iceland, Japan, Switzerland, Finland,
~> England Sweden and others?

Again, in terms of overall goal attainment, the US came in #15.  Iceland
was #16.  But Iceland did it with less money.  If you look at the income
statistics for Iceland or the average pay for physicians or the amount of
medical research done, you might understand why they spent less money.  And
it didn't even do all THAT well in costs, since it was all the way up to
#14 in expenditures!

Finland was down at #22 in attainment.  And, like Iceland, France was
higher in spending (#18) than it was in health goal attainment!

France was indeed way up at #6.  But in the category of EXPENDITURES it was
even higher, at #4!  Germany was one step ahead of the US in health
attainment, at #14, but in spending it was even higher than France, at #3!
 Switzerland got pretty good health attainment, coming in all the way up at
#2, but it also spend more than every country other than the US, coming in
all the way up to #2 in expenditures!

Do you notice some sense of correlation there?

~>  But the "morbidity" measurement of
~>  EC> "outcome" assumes that medical science can cure all
diseases.  And even
~>  EC> at that, the US came in at #15 (not 37) in actual health system
~>  EC> attainment.  The "performance" index factors the
cost IN, so your above
~>  EC> sentence incorrectly double-counts the "lower cost" aspect.
 
~> Has nothing to do with what medical science can and cannot cure

Sorry.  I assumed that since you were talking about morbidity you knew what
it meant.

The big measurement of actual population health used by the World Health
Organization is called "disability adjusted life expectancy."  The US comes
in down at #24 on that scale.  But is that because 23 other countries have
better hospital care?  No, in fact one big factor is the higher homicide
rate in the US.  The US also has a relatively high rate of cigarette
smoking, with a subsequently high rate of mortality and morbidity from lung
cancer and respiratory disease.  The US also has a much higher rate of
HIV/AIDS than most countries outside Africa.  That one factor
singlehandedly chopped three months off the AVERAGE live expectancy
statistics for an infant born in the US in 1999.

If someone can come up with a medical insurance program that will cause
there to be fewer murders, less cigarette smoking, and fewer cases of
HIV/AIDS in the United States, that would be great.  But it isn't very
likely.  Are you starting to see the problems with the conclusions you are
drawing from the WHO statistics?

~>  EC> Costa Rica (#45) ranks far below the US (#15) in actual attainment of
~>  EC> health outcomes.  But it also SPENDS a lot less than the US.  When the
~>  EC> cost is factored in, Costa Rica winds up one spot ABOVE the US in
~>  EC> "performance" (36 versus 37).  You want to call
that "better outcome"
~>  EC> just because 36 is above 37, even though the actual attainment is
~>  EC> lower.  So I guess all you need to do is figure out how to get doctors,
~>  EC> nurses, hospital staffs, pharmacists, and medical technicians in the US
~>  EC> to work for the same pay that their counterparts in Costa Rica do,
~>  EC> without lowering the quality or effectiveness of care.  Good luck.
 
~> I did not use costs

The World Health Organization did, and you were using its statistics.

~> I never mentioned Costa Rica

The World Health Organization did, and I did.  It is one of the 36
countries you called "superior" to the US based on its WHO ranking.  I was
explaining what actually went into that ranking.  Should I repeat it for you?
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a