File talk:Social health protection.svg
Map based on unreliable ILO source
[edit]
The map created by Karl.brown/Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) on August 1, 2012 is inaccurate and misleading and its source is not reliable:
- International Labour Organization (November 16, 2010). World Social Security Report 2010/11: Providing coverage in times of crisis and beyond. Geneva: International Labour Office. ISBN 9789221232698.
Which uses health insurance coverage percentages from Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection on pages 83–90 of Appendix II in:
- International Labour Organization (2008). Social health protection: An ILO strategy towards universal access to health care. Social security policy briefings, Paper 1. Geneva: International Labour Office. ISBN 9789221211617.
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.
Apatens (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Response to apetens
[edit]
Having read the above carefully, I'm still not sure I understand the issue. We have 2003 statistics by one agency (OECD) that don't map with 2008 statistics by a different agency. Well, 5 years have passed, and there is likely a new or different methodology at play here. So, it is natural that the numbers are different. I can't see any reason to dispute that the ILO numbers are indeed the ILO numbers, which is all this map ever claimed. In fact, the graph shown simply replicates a figure from the paper, using the same exact divisions (e.g. <10%, 10-40%, etc): [1] (see figure 3.7), but converting it to an easily zoomable svg form w/o copyright issues. Do you really have any evidence, that the ILO is publishing figures which are wildly inaccurate - and do you have published sources which back up this assertion? I know some disagree with the ILO methodology, but calling it misleading/inaccurate/unreliable is not backed up by anything as far as I can tell.--obiwankenobi (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Moved discussion to Talk:Universal health care. That is the correct venue. Apatens (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
