Quality of service is by the very definition subjective from person to person.  Personal preference will guide your quality of service in many scenarios.  Keep trying to convince yourself that it's a broken system.  The only system that has categorically been proven a broken system is Socialization of things.

Actually, Quality can be measured quite easily, and especially when the same criterion is applied (quality of health can very easily be measured objectively on the same criterion). If anything the only subjective part of the study is the satisfaction of the locals, and I don't even know how much weight that had. You STILL have not read the report at all, since you obviously don't knwo what the fuck you are talking about when it comes to how they handeled this study. Until you actually read it and come up with valid arguments, your opinion is just blinded by the simple fact that you want your shitty system to be better. I'm sorry, that's now how it works.

Americans like to assume that anything we do is automatically the best. We don't need to consider the facts!

WOW am glad I saw some Arabic countries there
Finally something to be proud of :D

I agree, but the obvious problem is the how and why of it. The money has to come from somewhere, but where, and how

The idea is a noble one, and one that America should pursue, but the difficulties of it are immense.

Vlad... i've already explained why that ranking is flawed in this thread. You just... kinda ignored it.

One of the main 5 factors is "Fairness of distribution" which is a measure of unviersal healthcare.

So... yeah Universal Healthcre is going to have an advantage when "Universal Healthcare" is one of the main factors.

Something to note from that report.

The United States ranks #1 in responsivness... and between 3-38 in the "Fairness" of responsiveness.  3-38 being too close to call.

It's really the most important thing on that list.  Since things such as "Healthiness" (which the US still ranks pretty well in) are largely going to be affected by obesisty, culture (women constantly being told their fat) and the fact that health was judged by asking people how healthy they feel.

Why is that a bad factor?  A country can have the best healthcare in the world, but if only 1% of the population can access it, then it means that the country's healthcare system is deeply flawed.  Should a comparison of the healthcare systems across the world not consider this as a factor?  It would make no sense NOT to consider it.

The culture does influence overall health, but so does the effectiveness of the healthcare system.  Healthcare systems that are geared more towards preventive care typically score very well in that category.  Once again, why is it not relevant to consider that as a factor?

That's like saying a mechanic is good because they come to your house quickly and do a great job of taking care of your car when it breaks down.  But they only offer that service to 20% of their clients, and the clients they do offer it to they don't give any useful information about how to prevent their car from breaking down in the future because they don't care and know they can make more money if you aren't informed.  Responsiveness is not everything.

How is that a wrong statistic? Isn't the fact that as many people as possible are getting taken care of, in one way or another, a sign of a good health system? If you have the best doctors, most advanced thech, EVERYTHING, what would it matter if only 1 million out of 300million could access it? That's quite a shitty health system.

That statistic is quite valid in the study. If you don't like it change your health system.

Edit: FINALLY people who read the documents.

Edit2: Forgot to address your 2nd point. How is responsiveness the most important factor? It's a mix between respect for persons (privvacy) and orienting the client in the right direction. Yeah I can tell someone "there is this magic cure, it cures EVERYTHING you should get it!" Then when he goes to get it he notices it costs 100k a month to use.

Because that's not what it's judging.  It's judging "Fairness in payment".  As in how much you pay vs your income. 

It has nothing to do with treatment.

Also... even if it had anything to do with what you were talking about.  A country can still have great healthcare equality and just poor healthcare.  If I have no healthcare plan at all and no doctors i score a perfect 100% for my country on "Equality of treatment".

Responsiveness is the best and the only good indicator because it's the only one based a resonable factor.

Health is flawed because it doesn't account for a number of factors.

1) Healthcare isn't soley responsible for Health there are numerous numerous other factors.  Such as culture, food, types of foods eaten, personal attitudes of the people... etc..  Also just your definition of health.

2) "Fairness in payment".  Is... well a statistic based soley around how socialized your country is. 

3) Overall Goal attainement.  Ok this one is actually an Ok metric... it judges just how often one gets the heatlhcare they would like to get.

4) Health cost expenditures per capita.  Once again... highly depenedent on factors other then just your healthcare system.

When you look at the numbers... what you come up with for the American Healthcare system is these actual conclusions.

1) Americans feel like they are really unhealthy. 

2) Americans get the fastest level of response to their problems in the world... even people with no health insurance

3) America payments are paid for with progressive taxation as much as other countries.

4) Americans rank very well when it comes to getting the treatment you would want.  15th.  Over many socialized countries programs. 

As you'll note if you've looked at the data.  

Goal attainment doesn't match up well with How healthy you feel.

There are plenty of countries where the people in other countries feel much more healthy... yet they don't receive the treatments they want and they don't reach the level of health they want.

So if you are a doctor, the quality of your work should only be judged by how responsive you are to your patients and not how much better your patients actually get? That doesn't make any sense.

Even if you disregard "Fairness in Payment," I don't see how you can claim healthcare per capita is not a relevant factor. If two different countries provide equal medical care, doesn't the country who spends less money on healthcare (with no distinction between private and public spending) have a better system? If I build an engine that is equally as powerful as another engine but it gets twice the gas mileage, haven't I built a better engine?