Those are good countries to compare US to for public policy. I go nuts when people draw in Scandanavian examples for diverse anglo nations. But that doesn't me

Those are good countries to compare US to for public policy. I go nuts when people draw in Scandanavian examples for diverse anglo nations. But that doesn't mean that the alternative of universal health as it's practiced in those other countries is a good alternative, just the obvious one. The current US system is stupid: tying your healthcare to employment. It's no surprise that creating distance from the people who pay and the people who consume significantly increases costs. In Australia you can opt for private health insurance, and get a rebate. Nothing like that in the UK. People in London who can afford it often pay for private service to avoid dealing with the state facilities. I'd be interested to know whether that was factored into the books for the figures you cite - I'd expect not. The big issue is aged care. If the official system is so awful that you find ways to keep your parents at home longer - how does that get reflected in the numbers. Also quality of life issues - whether people in state aged care in country A are having a good time at greater expense, whereas those in country B are being dosed up with drugs to keep them quiet. What choice does the person and relatives have in that care? With universality - very little. I can't see how universal care could deliver good outcomes for aged care. It has all the makings of a numbers game, an exercise in muddying the waters about who is responsible so they can ship a cheap one-size-fits-all model.