Here is your evidence:

In an analysis we published in 2011, the ratio of social service spending to medical care spending was significantly associated with better health outcomes across 34 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries between 2000 and 2005.

and

When comparing state-to-state spending between 2000 and 2009, those states with higher ratios of social service spending to health care spending had better outcomes on average.

[1] https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/20/10/826.abstract

[2] https://www.rwjf.org/en/blog/2016/08/how_social_spending.htm...

[3] http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/35/5/760.abstract

Google healthcare cost per capita vs life expectancy.

Last time I checked, Canada, for example, spent 1/3rd less than the USA and Canadians lived a few years longer.

IIRC, of the "universal coverage" systems, Switzerland's ACA-like system had the highest per capita, but still less than USA's system.

Much has changed these last few years. eg Our life expectancy in the USA has fallen.

Life expectancy is a terrible measure for quality of healthcare. It ignore so many other factors. The only way it could be a suitable measure if you assumed every human in every country was the same except for the healthcare they receive. It's pretty clear they aren't - lifestyle, smoking rates, alcohol and drug abuse, accidents, suicides, genetics.

You’re far better to look at things like “survival after cancer diagnosis” where the US has some of the world’s best outcomes.

https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20180131/us-...

Good article on the topic of assigning a cause-and-effect relationship between life expectancy and health care systems: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-21/does-t...

I prefer the non-snark, non-partisan version of that narrative.

https://ourworldindata.org/us-life-expectancy-low

> Life expectancy is a terrible measure for quality of healthcare. ...lifestyle, smoking rates, alcohol and drug abuse, accidents, suicides, genetics.

Only if we assume public health is unrelated to individual health.

OK, so if we assume that, then is public health worse in Europe because smoking rates are higher than the US? How about higher alcohol consumption?

Using life expectancy to judge the quality of a healthcare system or quality of public health efforts is like judging car quality by how nice the body work is. It's a component, but a relatively minor one in overall quality.

Why are you asking me when you could just google?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...

Western Europe does better, Eastern Europe does worse. Pretty much as one would expect.

--

Your prior "5 year cancer survival rate" was pretty random. The cherry picking of one favorable stat while ignoring the mountain of counterfactuals.

I was confused.

Then I spotted this.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/us-vs-europe-life-expectancy-...

Aha. Just another "libertarian" talking point. Good grief.

You're arguing in circles and not making a lot of sense.

First I argued that life expectancy isn't a good measure because of lifestyle, then you say "public health should address those", then I argued Europe does worse than the US on several public health metrics like smoking rates and alcohol consumption, then you go back to life expectancy.

I have no idea the point your making because you're failing to actually provide counterfactuals.

I know this is really counterintuitive, but last I heard, health care isn't a major contributor to average life span.

A much bigger factor is GDP per person.

I think of it as: The more material wealth you have, the better your life is, and you get less risk of bad health.