I understand what you were saying, but my point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense.
What I'm saying is that you can have a system that is great for probably close to 95% of all health care needs, at lower cost and for all of your population. This is what the WHO data shows. For the remaining health care needs there may be differences between countries, but I don't see any evidence the US is leading in all forms of advanced treatments (obviously they are in some, but not all). For example, survival rates for the most common forms of cancer are not all that different between US and Europe or Asia, and not highest in the US for all of them [1].
What I don't understand is what you mean by 'half the people do great' in the US system, and in which way it is 'better' than other countries? Do you assume they fix a broken leg better in the US than in say Canada? That better medicines for common illness are only available in the US? Is the hospital staff more friendly, or do the ambulances drive faster because you paid more for your insurance? I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely curious what you mean.
Whether it is rational to prefer a system where you pay (a lot) more for probably all the health care you will ever need in your whole life, under the premise that there is a very small chance you would attract a condition that requires treatment that may not be 'best in the world' in your country and health care system, that's a different question. It does not seem rational to me, for lack of evidence the quality of care would go down if the system were built on solidarity instead of egoism. Anyway, I don't think it actually matters when comparing health care systems. In the end only survival rates and available treatments are relevant, and I don't see any signs the rest of the developed world is severely trailing the US in that regard.
By the way, I cannot speak for other countries, but e.g. in the Dutch health care system you are also insured for treatments that are only available overseas. For example rare forms of cancer or genetic diseases. So even under the assumption such treatments are always exclusively available in the US, this does not mean you are left hung to dry if you are unfortunate enough to suffer from them.
What I'm saying is that you can have a system that is great for probably close to 95% of all health care needs, at lower cost and for all of your population. This is what the WHO data shows. For the remaining health care needs there may be differences between countries, but I don't see any evidence the US is leading in all forms of advanced treatments (obviously they are in some, but not all). For example, survival rates for the most common forms of cancer are not all that different between US and Europe or Asia, and not highest in the US for all of them [1].
What I don't understand is what you mean by 'half the people do great' in the US system, and in which way it is 'better' than other countries? Do you assume they fix a broken leg better in the US than in say Canada? That better medicines for common illness are only available in the US? Is the hospital staff more friendly, or do the ambulances drive faster because you paid more for your insurance? I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely curious what you mean.
Whether it is rational to prefer a system where you pay (a lot) more for probably all the health care you will ever need in your whole life, under the premise that there is a very small chance you would attract a condition that requires treatment that may not be 'best in the world' in your country and health care system, that's a different question. It does not seem rational to me, for lack of evidence the quality of care would go down if the system were built on solidarity instead of egoism. Anyway, I don't think it actually matters when comparing health care systems. In the end only survival rates and available treatments are relevant, and I don't see any signs the rest of the developed world is severely trailing the US in that regard.
By the way, I cannot speak for other countries, but e.g. in the Dutch health care system you are also insured for treatments that are only available overseas. For example rare forms of cancer or genetic diseases. So even under the assumption such treatments are always exclusively available in the US, this does not mean you are left hung to dry if you are unfortunate enough to suffer from them.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/concord-2....