Cost of Health Care By Country, as Compared to Life Expectancy

Canadians' responses to the US are not a rational phenomenon. They're rooted in our identity issues and aren't amenable to argument. This is a (the?) fundamental fact of (English) Canadian history right from the beginning.

It doesn't follow that all our responses are wrong; as far as I can tell they tend to fall along a spectrum. But it's a real weakness that we can't be more objective. It leads us to accept and defend substandard things about ourselves that we could otherwise set about improving... your example being exhibit #1.

"The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]"

An additional datapoint (pdf): http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012...

Low Life Expectancy in the United States: Is the Health Care System at Fault? Samuel H. Preston & Jessica Ho

Abstract: "Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system."

But your first point needs some correction. Health insurance is only tax-deductible when it's paid for by your employer. [EDIT: Just noticed you mention this lower down, but your first paragraph gives a misleading impression.]

This is perverse in multiple ways. There's the way you mention: that it subsidizes health care over other forms of compensation, so we wind up spending more on health care than we would otherwise.

But also, with particular relevance to HN, it subsidizes employment over other kinds of work. If you leave your job to start a startup, you lose a substantial tax advantage.

I do not trust in the market to correct unverified claims; many people want to believe in miracle cures, and will buy snake oil despite others decrying it as such.