here is some fine statistical analysis for those who claim that we are the best:
***********.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx
Shame on us!!!!!!

Shame on this "survey":-)
I checked out this "commonwealth fund" -sounds like some Obama -cheering group of activists who fudge data to fit their political agenda.

I did not find any statistical analysis at all in this article, just conclusions based on some survey of patients and physicians: no numbers provided.

We are the best. Here's the response:
***********.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/230339/misguided-hit-u-s-health-care/grace-marie-turner
And here's some interesting statistics that I found: ***********.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

We are the best. Here's the response:
***********.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/230339/misguided-hit-u-s-health-care/grace-marie-turner
And here's some interesting statistics that I found: ***********.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

and, of course, this response is from the "unbiased" publication:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Can we find something more neutral then The National Review?
Or, to be fair - maybe an alternative set of of statistics?
Using conservatives-pleasing parameters?
Let's compare numbers to numbers, instead of answering to numbers with ideology. ( In all fairness, I agree that ideological bias exist in all statistics). And, would like to draw conclusions based on sets of data instead of somebody's interpretations.

Julia, that study is from a biased publication too. Moreover, it's not even a study, it's BS. I work with medical studies all the time (right now I'm taking a break from reading a long paper in Lancet open on another computer). This one is simply not serious. Instead of using hard data (like outcomes - e.g. European cancer mortality is dramatically higher than the American one) they use purely subjective responses in a survey. They don't even account for cultural differences - e.g. American consumers tend to be more demanding, and the service that they say "sucks" may actually be better than the service that some Europeans rate as "excellent". When people use such obviously flawed methodology, you not it's not a study - it's propaganda.

Ok, then let's place a link to a study you like.
Let's compare data you are interested in.
I'm particularly interested in life expectancy and infant and childhood mortality.
And "Healthy" indexes - rates of lifestyle related diseases, obesity, Metabolic sm, ( or their reduction, etc...).

Julia, life expectancy and infant mortality have nothing to do with the health system, and anyone who mentions those indicators already has a certain agenda.

hmmmm.... please elaborate, I'm listening.
If you will say those are JUST societal factors - I'll disagree.
What are the top 10 indicator of EFFICIENT Healthcare system?
( again, not the availability of good medicine)