>Right, but then the US should have a higher life expectancy in exchange for the cost. For plenty of maladies the US has the best care as measured by things li

>Right, but then the US should have a higher life expectancy in exchange for the cost. For plenty of maladies the US has the best care as measured by things like five year cancer survival rates for particular cancers. >Instead it gets the same and only after correcting for murders and car accidents. If the point is to use life expectancy to compare quality of medical care, then you have to remove causes of death that don't involve treatment. E.g. if I'm a 35 year old person in good health sitting on the steps with my homies and someone drives by and shoots me in the head and I die, how is that a failing of medical care? It should be done from all countries. Ultimately, life expectancy is a bad metric to use anyway. It treats it as a score for bureaucrats to maximize. In the US, at least, people have the right to live in ways that will reduce their life span.