Earlier quoted context omitted.
"US life expectancy is dropping" there are so many things that affect this that it's not a very good measure of healthcare. US has great healthcare for those who have coverage. The issue is non-full coverage and how bonkers costly it is. Not quality in general.
> US has great healthcare for those who have coverage While I agree it seems pretty good, I'd be interested in a more detailed breakdown of its strengths and weaknesses (for those who have coverage, and ignoring costs). I realize that nothing tells me that it's "great" other than somewhat boastful repetition by Americans.
When you need something, they do it. In most socialized systems, you wait, and, you may get the commodity version.
When you're a special case, there's a specialist there, and often they are on the real cutting edge. Socialized systems tend to get stuff later.
If you have something weird and chronic, doctors can look into it. Here in Canada, in Waterloo, I literally could not get a doctor - not as some kind of 'shortage' thing, but by policy: you don't get a doctor - you go to a clinic. They mostly do kids with the flu in there, not weird stuff and it's really difficult to get someone to take you seriously. And it's illegal to pay someone to have a close look at you.
The richest people in the world generally go to America for tricky or specialized things.
America has the best for those who are covered, it's just to easy to lose coverage, moreover, the costs in the system are byzantine and crazy.