The WHO in this case is not the 1970's era rock group, but the World Health Organization. It rated the quality of health care around the world. (You can find a listing at www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf). One might think WHO ratings would show what works and what does not in national health care systems. But a cursory review of the figures reveals the truth: The ratings aren't ratings at all, just a biased socialist survey.

First a little background. The WHO purports to measure and rank the care, distribution, cost, fairness, expenditures, and performance of national health care organizations in 191 countries.

Start with the Dale or Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy indicator. It's an average number of healthy years a person lives before becoming disabled near the end of life. The WHO says the figure is 70 years for American babies born in 1999, and that earns the U.S. a ranking of 24th (1 is best and 191 worst). Japan tops the category with a Dale of 74.5 years.

The authors suggest Japan's ranking comes from a population that eats more fish and rice, and less red meat. How does it know that? Look at the other nine countries in that category's top ten (Australia, France, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Monaco, and Andorra). They are all mountainous, except for Australia. Following the same logic, walking up and downhill (or spending more time near the seashore) has as much influence on well being. Statisticians could test this theory by examining the Dale of Colorado or California residents.

Columbia received a top ranking for fairness in financial contributions because Columbians in low income brackets pay less than those in higher brackets for the same treatments. The U.S. ranked 54. This despite charity hospitals in most large cities and free clinics in many poor neighborhoods. The list authors apparently think that charity does not count unless it comes from a government.

The Performance column is notable because it is the composite of the other categories. (One assumes. It doesn't say.) France, a socialist country, took the top spot by scoring well across the board. But the top four (France, Italy, San Marino, and Andorra) are relatively tiny with homogenous populations. France would fit inside Texas, and Andorra has the population of Warren, Ohio. A Web site sponsored by the French embassy says its health care system is entirely free for 96% of the population. Free is a strong word. Any benefit has cost. A business magazine recently hinted at the real cost for such policies in an unhealthy 9.4% unemployment rate among the French.

If you believe speedy medical care is essential, consider this: In Canada, the 30th ranked country, 10,000 breast cancer patients filed a class-action suit because they had to wait an average of two months for post operation radiation treatments.

And from Spectator magazine in the U.K., James Bartholomew sites unimpressive statistics for that 10th place nation: U.K. males diagnosed with prostate cancer have a 57% chance of dying from it. He says that is worst in the world. But the odds for males in the 37th ranked country, the U.S., are only 19%, the best chance of survival in the world. The simple reason for the imbalance, explains Bartholomew, is that U.S. males are more likely to be treated. Even more to the point, he adds, Americans are more likely to get the diagnostic tests that lead to better treatment.

The bottom line is that the WHO report isn't really a highlight of best practices. It's just a biased view by an unaccountable bureaucracy saying that other government-sponsored enterprises know best.