Those comparisons aren't very enlightening if you don't compare the quality of services provided.
[1] https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Health-at-a-Glance-2017-Ke...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_rank...
I'm not sure what warrants that tone, when I was simply stating something obvious (you can't judge a healthcare system by its cost if you don't look at the outcomes).
Thank you for contributing more valuable data/information.
It's interesting to see that the WHO methodology also got criticized. This points to the complexity of actually picking the right metrics/outcomes you want to optimize for.
Sorry if it didn't come across that way, it was meant to be light-hearted ^_^ tone doesn't always carry well over the internet. I wasn't criticizing you at all.
The OECD data is pretty damning. America leads its peers in obesity, smoking, air pollution and bankruptcies, and lags dramatically (1-2 standard deviations) in consultations skipped due to cost, population coverage, life expectancy, doctors per capita and beds per capita. Mission failed, IMO.
All for the low, low price of twice to three times what most other countries spend.
For example, as a French citizen, I would expect that if we're in the top 5 in terms of spending (regardless of whether it's done privately or publicly), we should have a system that's in the top 5 in terms of outcomes.
I wasn't in any way trying to suggest the US healthcare system is the "best" or whatever, just pointing out that pure cost comparisons are meaningless.