Despite Fender's comment, I don't think that study is fake news. However I do wonder about it's accuracy. It "appears" to be a study done by country(s)m other than the US, which makes it suspect for only that reason.
I also question the ratings categories, as to whether they are truly indicative of hospital care.

For example I see a chart recording deaths per capita, but NO chart recording how many patients per capita are actually considered for treatment. Could it be that the US simply attempts more repairs on cases that many other countries would consider lost causes?

Anyways, I'd feel better seeing quite a few more studies, with various different categories.

so when you see and post a low iq meme, you can derive definitive claims like "socialized medicine is not as high quality as the medicine in the US system" from it (ignoring all the facts suggesting otherwise, and also other high profile cases, like where rand paul went for his hernia surgery) - but when you see a study comprehensively debunking this idiotic talking point, you suddenly pretend to be a critical thinker, desperately trying to find flaws in it - because it doesn't fit your narrative...

but hey, good on you for not outright using the words 'fake news' while implying and acting like it still might very well be - guess that's the 'best' a cultist can do...

life expectancy is better in other countries...
possibly our healthcare is not the best.
hmmmm.

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2019/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries

This link references the OECD study done in 2019, and appears to show similar results, as far as outcomes (it does cover costs more in-depth, as well, but doesn't appear to factor that into actual outcomes of care). https://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm

I still think the US TRIES more procedures than a lot of other countries do. I KNOW the US costs more... no argument there.
I think it's mostly a case of the higher your aim, the more times you will show failures.

For example... the US is either close or already achieved a solution for macular degeneration. As far as I know, no one else is even close. Consequently, there will probably be more failures in this treatment, than if no one tried it at all.
And if a country doesn't try the treatment at all....then their records for success will accordingly be higher.

The only reason I used macular degeneration as an example... is that I have a friend that has it, and was reading about Stanford's research on it.

that has to be the most pathetic excuse ever. do you honestly think other countries don't do medical research and refrain from developing new treatments in order to boost their healthcare stats? it's mindblowing what kind of 'arguments' you have to resort to just because your simplistic narrative was destroyed by facts. holy shit...

Infant mortality definitions differ across countries and are an exceptionally poor metric to use as a core of measuring health outcomes.
The US is one of the best places for treating babies and infants, not the worst.

example:



There are also large demographic and lifestyle differences that heavily affect life expectancy rates.

Life expectancy also changes by demographic

You are more likely to survive a cancer diagnosis in the United States because our medicine is superior, especially if you pay for it

I'm well aware of that. That's one of the outliers in that ranking, IMO.