WHO health rankings all about ideology
To the editor:
Why does the World Health Organization rate the United States 37th out of 191 nations on health care? The Web site www.nrlc.org notes:
"You'd assume these WHO rankings would reflect how likely you were to survive an illness or injury, or to live better and longer with a chronic condition. However, the WHO rankings give great weight to whether the evaluated health care system meets the organization's ideological preferences.
"The U.S. is penalized for things like allowing health savings accounts, not having a government-run health care system, and having an insufficiently progressive income tax system. ... The low U.S. grades on these overcome its advantage on the statistics that directly measure health outcomes, where WHO rates our country No. 1."
So were it not for these ideological biases, the United States would be first on the WHO's list. I don't see the point of abandoning the best health care system in the world in favor of an inferior government-run, European-style system simply because of clever statistics and ideologically biased rating systems.
The WHO ranking was mentioned recently by both Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith and letter writer Richard J. Mundy. Were they to investigate the means by which the WHO's statistics are obtained, they would find that, rather than bolstering their own position, the facts clearly lead one to the opposite conclusion.
Our health care system is far from perfect and could use some modifications (tort reform, increased portability, more individual consumer decision making), but a total European-style government takeover would be a serious mistake.
Gary Strabala
Alex Strabala
LAS VEGAS
Wrong job
To the editor:
As I survey the list of the 50 highest paid Clark County employees (Sunday Review-Journal), I realize that as a teacher I don't belong to the powerful union that the Review-Journal is always complaining about. I don't get overtime, nor do I get to turn in unused sick leave for pay, nor do I get two years of pay if I get hurt on the job.
I only wish I got paid for the overtime I put in, or the 170 days of sick leave I have accumulated because I never miss work. I think the Review-Journal has been wasting time and space complaining about the wrong union.
And, yes, I do feel my job is just as important as the jobs held by the people on the list.
Mark Azevedo
LAS VEGAS
Common ground
To the editor:
This letter is in response to Thomas Mitchell's Sunday column regarding the fate and philosophy of the Review-Journal.
When I moved to Las Vegas from the East Coast 10 years ago, I immediately fell in love with the Review-Journal for the exact same reasons that Mr. Mitchell describes. The newspaper's philosophy of fiscal responsibility in government while embracing a more liberal view regarding social matters echoed my exact sentiments. While most mainstream media outlets have steadily driven a wedge between the people of this country by airing and catering to the "wing nuts," the Review-Journal has done a superior job at expressing the views of the real majority party in this country: the common-sense moderates.
I am convinced the newspaper will be around a long time due to its ability to adapt to and address a changing world while at the same time remaining steadfast to its philosophy. Great job to everyone at the Review-Journal, and thank you for offering us all a daily dose of common sense.
Erik Lofberg
LAS VEGAS
In the red
To the editor:
In response to Richard J. Mundy's Monday letter to the editor on the U.S. ranking in the World Health Organization report:
Is Mr. Mundy going to travel to countries that have ranked higher, such as the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Oman, et al. for his health care needs?
Mr. Mundy might want to check out the actual report to see how WHO arrived at these numbers. Americans do not leave America for their health care treatments; instead, people travel to America for their health care treatments.
Almost anyone will agree, regardless of political party, that we need health care reform. The question is whether we have a private-sector, market-oriented health care system, or a government-controlled health care system? If your choice is a government-controlled system, please point out to me any successfully operated government program that is not bankrupting us or is not operating in the red.
Warren Willis Sr.
LAS VEGAS
