just google “medical tourism” and one can find plenty about this.

of course we live in a far from perfect world, and some things are less influenced by the people involved in delivery of health care services. but does denying of the life expectancy (and the infant mortality) importance when judging the outcomes of such a system, excuse the system failure to convince more Americans to eat healthier, exercise more, smoke less, get the appropriate vaccinations and screening for chronic diseases in time?

WHO ratings are fairly accurate and blaming them for not grading the US better seems so un-American ( because it implies more of a sore loser atitude).

I’m not a supporter of ( exclusivelly) the socialized medicine but there are some advantages to it. in principle the capitalistic model alone does not apply very well in health care.

I can come to countles example when bending to following just the profit does not lead to better care. only 2 examples: excessive testing because the physician can not afford to spend more time with the patient ( or the way he is compensated does not encourage the outcome but the number of billable items). or the insurance companies charging premiums that are unafordable to a 50 year old diabetic who lost his job?

a blanket of social security (including health care security) is needed in any society. if the Americans agreed that people over 65 deserve universal health care coverage ( that’s what the Medicare scheme means)why not extend that to everybody? on top of a such a coverage anyone can add a supplemental insurance. the same is true for social security benefits to whom anyone adds their saving and investing.

and it is an illusion that the honest hard working stiff does not pay the care for the poor and uninsured. because these unfortunate (and indeed maybe unwise) people go to the ER’s with diseases in advanced stage and get care for free. but the ER’s and the hospitals will then charge the honest working insured person more than it should to cover those losses. or it goes bankrupt and closes and moves the burden to the next hospital and ER.

They’re all over the place. Some can be found here, here, and here. If you want more, you’re welcome to do your own research.

Higher relative poverty correlates with higher inequality outcomes …

This is a meaningless tautology.

And your sources for this are?

‘As to the poverty gap, it’s meaningless.’

Higher relative poverty correlates with higher inequality outcomes, especially in health. There is plenty of research on this, but I expect you’re not interested.

As to the poverty gap, it’s meaningless. It’s only being touted because all of the REAL economic indicators (unemployment, inflation, stock market, etc.) are in better shape than they’ve been in for decades.

Are you suggesting the WHO is deliberately selecting criteria to make the US look bad?

It’s hard to know where to go now - I suppose you think the huge relative poverty gap in the US (and the UK for that matter) either is a figment of a cabal of left-wing statisticians, or has no effect on health outcomes.

Well, that’s precisely the problem, isn’t it? With such a flexible definition, they can produce any result they like.

That means poverty, inequalities and public health too (which includes accidents etc). This is why the US fares so badly.