Mat wrote:your reasoning is flawed. Sure if were to look at life expectancy you could rank and stack according to that and it would make sense to go by averages. However to draw a conclusion about the quality of the health care based on that data you could not draw meaningful conclusions like you would like because you are including people who are not participating in health care really.
See my answer above. I'll quote part of it for you:
But hey... it makes no sense to me, but....if you were to look at 'insured people only' (so leaving out the non-insured part) and compare THOSE to countries around the world (where everyone is insured, so what you might call an 'unfair comparisson), the US health care system would do better, relatively, sure. But it would STILL NOT BE THE BEST.
The claim that the USA has the best health care system in the world remains a flat-out political lie.
(And oh, if you were to do what I don't think you should do... compare the 'insured' part of the US with, say, everyone in the UK... that other little problem of the US system would stand out even more starkly: the fact that it is WAY MORE EXPENSIVE. The most cost-inefficient system in the world.
I don't get how someone can rate a system that offers poor care to many people (those without insurance, those with little insurance), offers only average care to the larger part of the population (those with normal insurance) and offers all that at a costs that is way, way higher for less than any other country in the world the 'best system' in any way. Even if it has 'redeeming' quality of being able to offer some of the best treatments in the world for particular conditions (cancer-related, mostly). Because that is true for other countries as well. Some of the best hospitals? Sure. The best 'system'? That is a joke.