Your OP has been destroyed, Simp.
The whole things a load of trash.
First, we get compared to other countries with no chance to see the metrics. They were not presented for review. Just the "results". There isn't a whole of lot of historical information on countries like the United States because there hasn't really been something like us before. In that regard, the request is stupid. Our founders created this after studying, at length, other types of governments and coming up with this which was something somewhat unique in many ways. These other countries (the ones on the list have been around for a long time and have undergone numerous changes to their systems.....). Those who do create the metrics understandabely try to make them fit the most common forms of government in the world. This was the WHO some years ago that ranked the U.S. 37th in the world and just a dirty bandaid above Cuba. That BS (which really was BS for those of us who are familiar with our system) was touted by morons like Al Franken during the Obamacare debate. You know.....like the 57,000 people a year who died every year due to lack of health insurance.....but nobody every produced any frigging names or bodies.
And so, second, we can say there simply are not a lot of United States type of governments around.
The WHO also rates the happiest countries in the world and Finland has been number 1 for the past eight years. Always at the top are Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Funny how there is a better chance of cultural factors than governmental factors making that happen given that four of the five are border each other are in the same general area. Also, they have small populations compared to the U.S. and much less diversity. I have not seen (and the OP certainly didn't break it down) what factors are seen as being key to these "successes" (recalling that we might very well disagree with what they call success based on their Health Care Rating cow pie mentioned above).
But hey, it fits the narrative. It has to be because of their form of government. After all, the same result comes from the same form of government EVERY TIME. Only it doesn't. There is much much more at work. I don't have actual data, but I'd be curious to know just what the natural resource situation is for each of them.
Third, as I mentioned....small populations. I know that in Canada, there is quite a disparity between some of the provinces. New Brunskwick is the poorest province while Alberta is known to be wealthier and a bigger contributor to the country. If you pulled New Brunskwick out of the equation, Ottowa would be next. So, even within their 38 million people (about 13% of the US total), there is disparity between the provinces. So, just what is Canada a "good" or "bad" country. I am guessing the people of Alberta would say they are fine....not so sure about the rest of the country.
Austrailia, with 8 to 9% of the U.S population covers about the same land mass as the continental U.S. And they still have disparity too. You can see where that potential exists even with the smaller countries. The point being that the system is not reaching everyone even though the government is responsible for everyone.
So....what it is it?
Simply put, the narrative that this is a single variable equation is BEYOND STUPID. And yet that is the premise of the OP.
Next, the generalizations of metrics used to condemn the U.S. are built for other countries (WHO highly weight access to health care....so the U.S. gets downranked even though we have many of the best doctors, best hospitals, best access to hospitals, etc. etc.....we are still JUST better than CUBA. ROTFLMAO.
There are other things.....I went to Calgary every month for a year on a particular project. There were electoins going on and one of the adds that kept runnning was about the lack of doctors in the province. Why was there a lack of doctors? (this per the commercials)...they were going to the U.S. Canada disputes this, in general, so even they can't get their story straight. And the canadias I worked with liked universal care, but were all to aware of the many inefficiencies it created and were loaded with stories about as much. Just say'n.
A whole political science project summarized into a single variable BS challenge that says "prove me wrong".
I say to the OP......
