Talk:World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health and fitness Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism section

I just removed the opinion that "mostly conservatives" find this study to be flawed.

There was also a link to a left-leaning article by a very liberal website which objects to the healthcare system not being a single payer system. It was a real oddball page to use as a source. It seems like it wound up there by accident.. must have.

Anyways, lets keep the article itself neutral. "mainly by American Conservatives" is someone's opinion and is not demonstrable in any way. In fact, calling someone a conservative is just your opinion unless you have some quote from them saying they actually are a Conservative.

I think someone needs to do a better job with the whole section. Its kind of low quality

---Jf (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not the best for a section, but it was the best I could put together at the time. I would more than welcome a better integration into the article. On the other hand, many articles have a criticism section, so why cant this have one?--Metallurgist (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expenditure per Capita

Is the Expenditure Per Capita in terms of $1,000? It doesn't seem clear.

A: Expenditure Per Capita is a ranking from 1-191 like all the other columns, 1 being the highest expenditure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidX (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

If someone vandalizes the rankings again, the actual ranking starts on page 152 of the WHO document. France is ranked #1 (and #4 by expenditure). BakerStMD T|C 01:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current rankings are wrong again, it seems. Iceland should be #15 instead of Finland, Finland should be #21 instead of the US, and the US should be #37 instead of #21. There might be other mistakes, judging by this. I would fix this, but I'm not 100% sure how to edit Wikipedia. Apologies if I broke any rules while including my comment in the talk section.

Romania is in two places on the list (one very high, the other much lower) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.120.186 (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely replaced the table yesterday with more columns from Annex Table 1. The double Romania has been fixed. I'll be watching the topic for vandals.

Based on http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf whoever was copying this out did so in alphabetical order and shifted some by one by accident: the United Kingdom has the last ranking (overall healthcare efficiency) of the Ukraine, and the Ukraine of the United Republic of Tanzania... Correcting this. Harsimaja (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]