File talk:Universal health care.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

French Overseas Territories[edit]

The map should be changed to show that French Guiana and other overseas departements and territories have universal healthcare. They are integral parts of the French Republic and as such are covered by Securite Sociale just like mainland France. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil[edit]

The Constitution of Brazil enshrines universal health care as a constitutional right. The state provides healthcare through the Unified Health System (SUS), established in 1988. For this reason, Brazil should be coloured green

China[edit]

China has universal healthcare coverage, which is more comprehensive coverage and as a cost percentage, more subsidized then Australia, yet it is not green

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851015001864

In Need of Major Updates[edit]

There are so many countries on here that have provisions in their constitutions for universal health care that are not recognized on here including, but not limited to: Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Georgia, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, and so many more.

North Korea[edit]

Why is North Korea not green? They have universal healthcare.

comment[edit]

Is it time to change the USA to Yellow, for "trying"? If not, why not? (Serious question - what qualifies the other countries to be labeled as "trying" that the USA isn't yet doing?)

Discussion July 2012[edit]

See discussion here; input welcome: [1]

South Sudan[edit]

Needs South Sudan borders. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated[edit]

Per recent discussion, this has been updated based on this paper [2]; countries that met the threshold for UHC defined here are colored in green, while those with legislation (but not yet meeting the threshold) are in pink. If additional edits are made, please do so using a text editor (and not an SVG-graphics editor), as this may mess up the formatting and structure, which is easy to understand in the current file. --KarlB (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map based on unreliable ILO source[edit]

The map created by Karl.brown/Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) on July 17, 2012 is inaccurate and misleading and its source is not reliable:

Which uses health insurance coverage percentages from Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection on pages 83–90 of Appendix II in:

Which for OECD countries is based on 2003 statistics in:

  • OECD (October 10, 2006). OECD Health Data 2006 (Update October 2006). Paris: IRDES (Institut de Recherche et Documentation en Economie de la Santé), OECD.

But major discrepancies/errors are found in Table A2.2 of the 2008 ILO paper vs. OECD Total public and primary private health insurance coverage statistics for 2003 for Chile (96.0% vs. 66.1%), Israel (9.0% vs. 100%), Mexico (78.6% vs. 46.5%), United States (100% vs. 85.0%), making all ILO-based health insurance coverage data (and world maps based on it) unreliable.

In addition to being based on unreliable ILO health insurance coverage data, the 2010 Stuckler et al. symposium background paper has other problems:

  • it equates 90% health insurance coverage with universal (100%) health insurance coverage
  • it erroneously says that United States is among 75 countries that have passed health legislation that explicitly states that the entire population is covered by a health plan that grants them access to a core set of services
  • it says that the United States will achieve >90% health insurance coverage by 2014

This Wikipedia map was altered from the 2010 Stuckler et al. paper map to include an additional 17 countries that the paper (dubiously) says have passed health legislation that explicitly states that the entire population is covered by a health plan that grants them access to a core set of services, but have not achieved >90% skilled birth attendance (4 countries) or >90% health insurance coverage (12 countries + the United States which the ILO says has achieved 100% health insurance coverage but has not). This Wikipedia map highlights these 17 additional countries as: "Nations with legislated mandate for Universal health coverage, but which have not yet reached thresholds above." It is not credible to highlight El Salvador (ILO 59.6%), Bolivia (ILO 66.9%), and the Congo (ILO …%) as being closer to providing universal health care than Poland (OECD 97.5%), Lithuania (ILO …%), and Lebanon (ILO 95.1%).
Apatens (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Apatens[edit]

Apatens makes some interesting points. However, I cannot agree with their discounting of ILO data, nor of the Stuckler paper. ILO is a major intergovernmental organization, and they take their data very seriously. If there are discrepancies between old OECD data and more recent ILO data, the only explanation is that ILO statisticians found their numbers to be more accurate. Now, you can disagree with ILO methodology, or dispute their findings, but unfortunately that all adds up to original research - in order for such findings to make their way into wikipedia, you need to write them up and publish them and get them cited.

As for Stuckler et. al., that paper is the best one I have been able to find that actually draws a line in the sand and attempts to set a workable threshold for UHC. Some countries that we feel "should be" there aren't, and others that don't look right, are. So, is it perfect? No. Is it a global study (eg looking at most countries in the world), published in a peer reviewed forum? Yes. Their data is from 2009 so of course people will complain about it, but unfortunately we don't have any other *clear* definition of achievement of UHC, nor do we have any other published papers that lay out a threshold and then do the math in the way this paper does. So, what I suggest is that if we want to improve these maps, we find another published source, which is more recent, and has "better" data or a more agreeable threshold, and then use that to iteratively improve the map. People are working on this as we speak - but I haven't see the papers yet.

You should have seen the map before this most recent one - it was terrible, based on, well, I don't know what it was based on - no sources were given - but that wildly inaccurate map was replicated across the blogosphere and even ended up in the pages of the WSJ or something similar - and when I deleted it there was an outcry and people want a colored map on this page.

So, this current map is better than any other I've found, and I of course welcome ever better and more up to date sources. Until those are found, this map should remain, with proper notation explaining what it means, and where the data comes from, and how old it is. Too many wikipedia chloropleth maps like this are generated based on specious data - this one at least has a paper and research behind it.

To respond to a few specific points:

  1. "the United States which the ILO says has achieved 100% health insurance coverage but has not" - You will really have to debate this with the ILO. It's all about definitions - and per their definition the US have 100% social health protection (probably due to the fact that someone can show up at an emergency room and receive treatment without having to pay right away). Again, it's all about definitions.
  2. "it equates 90% health insurance coverage with universal (100%) health insurance coverage" - no, the paper sets a threshold for achievement of UHC, and it uses 90% coverage + 90% skilled birth attendance + legislated mandate as a proxy for same. There is no such thing as 100% - even countries which we consider fully there (e.g. Thailand, France, etc) still have people who slip through the cracks. UHC is not a destination, it's a journey. Is your package of services sufficient? Should you also cover dialysis? If you don't, do you have UHC? The WHO UHC paper lays this out nicely, showing 3 dimensions of coverage - reach, out of pocket expenses, and depth of services covered. In theory, reach can go to 100%, but you're not done - what about migrants, or stateless people in your borders, or tourists, or ... As for payment/financial protection, some systems have high levels of co-pays even at ~100% coverage (eg. Japan) which other countries would disagree with - so one goal is to bring those OOP down. As far as benefit packages/depth of services, you can keep on adding and adding. So in a sense, you're never done. That's why I think a practical way forward is to have a threshold, a line in the sand. Otherwise, it's meaningless to say "Country X has UHC and country Y doesn't" - if we're not all using the same measuring stick it's a useless argument.
  3. "It is not credible to highlight El Salvador (ILO 59.6%), Bolivia (ILO 66.9%), and the Congo (ILO …%) as being closer to providing universal health care than Poland (OECD 97.5%), Lithuania (ILO …%), and Lebanon (ILO 95.1%)." - again, I was just following the methodology of the paper - which spent a fair amount of time highlighting the legislative aspects. In any case, the other map (based on pure ILO figures) was placed below, for exactly this reason, to highlight different levels of ILO-determined social health protection. But the pure ILO figures, on their own, are disputed in other literature, which is why Stuckler et. al. added other criteria for UHC, at least that's how I understood their approach. There are other ways to color the map based on the Stuckler paper (for example, you could have one color for each possible pairing of criteria - legislation, +90% insurance, +90% birth attendance, etc), but I actually hope we will just find a better paper with more recent data and move forward with that.obiwankenobi (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please create 2 different files and let Wikipedia page editors decide which one to use[edit]

Please start another file. Apatens should start a separate file page since Obiwankenobi has had his versions up for a year until just recently when this edit war started.

I have not analyzed which version is better, and I don't intend to. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey[edit]

Add Turkey to the map, because they have UHC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_health_coverage_by_country#.22Genel_Sa.C4.9Fl.C4.B1k_Sigortas.C4.B1.22_in_Turkey --94.123.224.180 15:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea[edit]

North Korea has universal healthcare--Crossswords (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map in need of 2019 update[edit]

This map's contents and the file description require updating to reflect the state of universal health care around the world as of 2019. Batreeq (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This map has issues[edit]

I hope I'm not messing anything up... But I have found this map all over the internet and I think it is so simplistic as to be completely misleading. I am Dutch and I can testify that (as of Dec 2019) Holland does NOT have free universal health care. You have to buy mandatory insurance, and if you don't buy it you have to pay the entire bill and you may get a fine. That is Holland, a country I know. Heaven knows what other countries are completely mislabeled. The ILO link goes to their main page. I haven't tried hard, but I haven't found the data. Anyway, it doesn't matter - the map is BS. I understand people want a map, and it is nice to have and people paste it all over their FB and twitter accounts, but it is just plain wrong and should be removed.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Universal_health_care.svg&oldid=379618759"