[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tolbiny,

I agree that responsiveness should be given a much higher weighting than the others (although I'm not sure whether it measures responsiveness for ALL people or just those who actually receive care - a crucal distinction). Do you agree that it isn't the only measure?

I'd say the US should probably be higher in the list obviously, but #1 is not accurate either.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, but what would happen if, under my imaginary "idealized" ranking system, the US came in at like 9th or 12th and ahead of maybe Canada but not UK or Norway but not Spain or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your queston. Nothing would happen, the US would be the 9th or 12th best health care in the world and I'd still want it to be better, but realistically would be pretty happy with the system we have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Thats basically my point. I was agreeing with you that the criticisms the previous poster was making wouldnt vault the US up to #1, but that that isnt necessary. If the US was #9 or something like that, it would be DISASTROUS for those supporting universal health care. Their strongest argument is that we spend so much on healthcare and yet we are practically a third world country or something like that, and look at all these socialized health care countries that are kicking our ass. If we were ranked just ok, and we were better than some socialized countries and worse than some others, this would become a far less powerful point. Then people would be forced to argue about the concept on its own merits.