They have Oman ranked number 8......that alone discounts the ranking in my book.

Much of their results are based on infant mortality....problem is they don't have a universal definition of infant mortality and instead allow each nation to define their own.....the US considers still borns against infant mortality; most other nations{especially the high ranking ones==surprise surprise===} don't.

Life expectancy, the US ranks 30.......but we are a nation of 300 plus million so really should not be compared to Monaco or Iceland.

Our Life expentancy is the highest in the world when compared to the 8 most populous Nations on Earth(and 2nd in the world when compared to the 10 most populous).

In short, the WHO numbers are not the problem, just their conclusions.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'm not seeing your reasoning here. Why would the population numbers make a difference if they are talking about statistical averages? Could you elaborate? (Or are you just going by what Bill O'Reilly had to say on the subject?)

Never saw that O'Reilly show.... but if you're comfortable saying we suck because two dozen tiny nations(whose combined pop. would maybe rival that of our three largest states) so be it.

:)

Again... What does the relative population totals have to do with the average life expectancy? If the average is, say, 75 - it would still be the average regardless if the population was 300 or 300,000,000.

I think he's saying, not to put words in his mouth, that because there are (very simple numbers) 10 people who live to be 100 v. 1,000,000 people who live to be 80, it's kind of unfair if those 10 centenniaries are each their own sovereign nation of one ... so that the nation with 1,000,000 people living to be 80 is ranked "11th."

Yes, but how much of the worlds population is contained within the borders of the 8 most populous nations?

I guess what I am saying is there are far more people on this Earth that have a lower life expectancy than who have a greater one. A US citizen will find his or herself in the top 10 - 15 %....regardless how many "nations" have a higher life expect.

You could take the 200 longest living individuals on Earth and delcare each one a nation and then proclaim that the US is a lowly 230th.....still doesn't change the fact that most people would prefer to have medical care in the US than in their home country.

Something like that....yes.

Statistical outliers will be more common among smaller populations.

Using a baseball analogy, a batting average of .400 is more likely over 20 at bats than over 200. The best hitter in his baseball might rank way behind the guy who only played two weeks of the season.

That's why we need to know not only how the nimbers are different but also whether those differences a statistically significant. I'm guessing they probably are in this case.

But then there are confounding factors thay are hard to eliminate. West Virgina and Santa Clara county could have identical populations and identical healthcare systems and I suspect you'd still see statistically significant differences in many demographic measurements.

Finally_ of course_ there's the fact that correlation does not equal causation.

Quibbles over the validity/bias of WHO's rankings aside, I still find the "infographic" rather illuminating. You may not be able to unequivocally say that all of those nations' systems are "better" than the U.S., but clearly they are neither utter disasters leading to the ruination of their nations' health, nor giant money sinks with costs spiraling out of control.