You're not going to get better treatment in either Cuba or Venzuela, it's a joke. In a nut shell the WHO's rankings are a fraud,they don't even publish them anymore because they themselves have admitted they aren't accurate.
Let's start off with this:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... ey-kidding
The WHO rankings are based on a constructed index of five factors. One factor is "health level," defined as a country's disability-adjusted life expectancy. Another is "health responsiveness," which includes desirable characteristics of healthcare like speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities.
Both of these are sensible indicators of health quality, but they constitute only 37.5 percent of each country's score. The other 62.5 percent encompasses factors only tenuously connected to the quality of care -- and that can actually punish a country's ranking for superior performance.
Take "Financial Fairness" (FF), worth 25 percent of the total. This factor measures inequality in how much households spend on healthcare as a percentage of their income. The greater the inequality, the worse the country's performance.
Notice that FF necessarily improves when the government shoulders more of the health spending burden, rather than relying on the private sector. To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in healthcare is therefore to engage in circular reasoning, because the rankings are designed to favor greater government involvement. (Clinton's plan would attempt to improve the American FF score by capping insurance premiums.)
Suppose you had two equal health care systems that both spent the exact same amount of money with exact same outcomes. One is funded 100% privately by individuals and the other is 100% socialist system funded by the government. The socialist system would outrank the private one.
In the real world US citizens have access to more options and more money to spend on health care than in a poor country like Cuba, because I can and do buy aspirin or take advantage of things here in the US not available in Cuba this is a bad thing?
The other two factors, "health distribution" and "responsiveness distribution," are no better. Together worth 37.5 percent of a country's score, these factors measure inequality in health level and responsiveness. Strictly speaking, neither measures healthcare performance, because inequality is distinct from quality of care. It's entirely possible to have a healthcare system characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone.
Still nothing to do with outcomes, a country can score well on this if health care is equally as bad for everyone.
That's even before we get into fraudulent data, the data used for these rankings is reported by the countries.