The US healthcare system has lots of problems, but the quality of its infant care isn't really one of them. Infant mortality rates are calculated very differently in different countries which accounts for much of the US's "poor" rating. The biggest factor is that the US considers all births, regardless of how premature they are, towards its mortality rate and is aggressive in its treatment of pre-term births. Many other countries don't count early births or babies born with weights below a certain threshold towards their infant mortality rate.

Another number then, look at rate of mortality in pregnant women. It's higher in the US as well.

From http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT?view=map

* 0.014% of dying during a pregnancy in the US

* 0.008% of dying during a pregnancy in France

Those aren't the total chances of dying during a pregnancy, they're the chances of dying from pregnancy-related causes. You can take that 0.006% gap, and then add another 0.004% for 9 months of traffic fatalities.

It'd be interesting to see the numbers after accounting for obesity.

I'm pretty sure the people at the WHO are very aware of these facts. If you look at their numbers the US is still significantly worse off than almost all European nations.

Look at infant mortality for college educated people in the two countries. Much more interesting. The US has massive population segments on drugs and other segments here illegal that dont get medical care.

Generally if you are well off, the US is a fine place to be. If you are addicted or poor, it's not so great.

The drug problem is intimately related to the healthcare problem. America's private system is absolutely lousy at preventative medicine and public health.

In most of Europe, it's easy to get into rehab even if you're destitute. We have drug workers out on the streets providing advice, clean needles and referrals to other healthcare services. Homeless addicts still have access to exactly the same services as anyone else. The death toll from addiction falls remarkably quickly if there's a concerted effort to abate it.

We also avoided the opiate epidemic that is currently blighting the US - pill mills simply don't exist when there's no profit motive to dole out opiates like tic-tacs.

Setting aside the obvious humanitarian issues, failing to address the healthcare needs of the very poorest is costing the American taxpayer dearly. The economic benefits of preventative medicine and social care were described better than I could in Gladwell's essay "Million Dollar Murray".

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-...

Healthcare alone is just one piece of the puzzle. Having a french style healthcare system without corresponding safety nets in other areas to fight poverty/addiction/inequality etc would be better than the status quo, but not very effective.

Important to note that the opioid addiction epidemic is actually exacerbated by flaws in the US healthcare system, so adoption of standards from France or elsewhere could help with that too.

Not to mention how many people need addiction treatment and/or psychiatric care who are instead incarcerated.

having some kind of health problem is a great way to suddenly not be wealthy in the US, too.

I think this is the real benefit of socialised health care. Your wealth will survive a health problem. You will not lose your house because you got cancer.

Health insurance works when it works (I have some), but when they decide they're not going to pay your bills, for whatever reason, and you have to pay the bills to keep the doctors working until you can take the insurer to court, then it's a nightmare. Socialised health care avoids this.

> Your wealth will survive a health problem.

Really? Maybe a long duration but highly curable health problems. What happens to the blind or someone who loses both arms? Do they really have more wealth than their counterparts in the US?

yes, their existing wealth will survive (to allow them to adapt their life to their new condition, probably).

Less than 30% of Americans have more than $1000 in savings

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/...

I can almost guarantee that nearly all of the 30% of Americans WITH savings have health insurance with an out of pocket max.

I can almost guarantee that many of the people without insurance are in the no savings group.

So perhaps I am missing something, but I am not seeing a huge group of Americans that have their wealth in danger by the current healthcare system.

Wait, what? so your serious answer to "the US system of healthcare endangers the wealth of patients" is that over 70% of Americans don't have wealth anyway?

And furthermore, that the system doesn't affect them because they're not part of it?

What do the 70% of Americans with no savings do when they get sick?

It doesn't. Deaths from <5 year olds are explicitly excluded from life expectancy statistics. You'll find them under infant mortality.

Not usually, if you do that then:

Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ Digging into it you find women have a shorter life expectancy and men had a longer one.

PS: Using birth or at age 70 modern England has longer lifespans.