Life expectancy has plenty of factors into it that have nothing to do with healthcare. Like gun violence for example. Or car crashes. Did you guess that we have enormously higher numbers of both then any of those countries? So lets just say we were to ignore those for life expectancy to get a more accurate metric for our health care system. Where do you think we would rank then? Would you guess that it is number one?
If you were to compare cancer survival rates, where do you think the U.S. would be? Would you guess number one?
http://www.aei.org/files/2006/10/17/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf
The U.S. is the world leader in medical technology and the world leader in health care performance. Using general broad oversweeping statistics that include things that have nothing to do with healthcare to attack the healthcare system is a flat out, politicized LIE.
Calling a valid argument a "lie" or even worse a "LIE" shows weakness in argument... underscored by the fact that the best you could do is provide your own opinion in retort. I see no back up to your claim. Now, it was fair game to argue why life expectancy and infant mortality are not full indicators.... and you made some attempt at that argument. But, these factors remain the primary measure of world health organizations...so you can not call the comparison of cost to life expectancy a "lie" when it is the accepted language of measure...
Taking us beyond the raw numbers for reason is intelligent argument. In doing so, however, you can’t dismiss widely acknowledged facts as mere “lies” .... they are facts. You can, however, acknowledge the fact in a “yes, but have to understand” fashion. As a matter of illustration, the discussion of the national debt has a similar argument…. The fact is that national debt rose by $5T during the Obama administration... it’s a fact (not a lie)… but to truly understand “how” or to appropriately argue that such is not Obama's fault is a “yes, but you have to understand argument” We will stop there as that particular argument has another place (plenty of places, in fact) to carry on. The point is that to be credible in retort you have to acknowledge the obvious…
I did follow-up on your arguments. Since you gave me no support for your assertions (you should have), I found my own:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers
National-Academies.org | Newsroom
Now each of these articles takes out accidents, murders and other deaths largely attributable to those under 50… Over 50 results are still poor (29th in world). So forget murders and accidents in your retort, they are irrelevant. But, the articles do well illustrate the complexity of using longevity as a sole determinant of quality in measuring the healthcare delivery system. They do not blame the healthcare delivery system for the poor result. So, I learned something here by going a bit deeper. Thank you.
These studies, however, do not lead anyone to the conclusion that the US has the BEST healthcare in the world. They merely suggest that our life expectancy is shorter for complex reasons. At best, they make the argument that our healthcare results are not as ugly as portrayed. They never address the high cost of delivery, hence the efficiency thereof. At best, the conclusion might be that the US delivery system “Costs more, does the same”… if so, it is still one of the most inefficient systems in the industrial world.
You, OTH, went even bolder than to argue that are system wasn’t bad; you asserted that we are “
the world leader in healthcare performance” Sorry, while you refuted the facts that held the claim that we were as bad as #37 (WHO rankings), you offered ZERO evidence that we were the best. It appears you logic is that if we are not #37 then we must be #1. Clean that one up or back down as the prevailing evidence is that the US system is, at best, OK.
Now, my major point on the weakness of the healthcare system is the lack of access. The fact that 48 million people (pre ACA) have no access to healthcare is a significant contributing factor. You can’t have 1/6 of your population outside the system and claim it’s a great delivery system. Now, to me that seems axiomatic.... but I like to back up what I say.
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette
Access to Health Care
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/1420-14.pdf