We don't consistently have "the best survival rates". We win some, we lose some. But in any case, these numbers are usually pretty misleading because they are completely clouded by early detection. For example:

British and American men both develop colon cancer at age 55. The American's cancer is discovered at age 57. The Brit's is not discovered until age 60. Both survive until age 64.

Who contributed to a higher "survival rate"? Who would you rather be? Why the difference?

And have fun explaining how despite our higher cancer "survival rates" than the Brits, they have a much smaller fraction of their population dying of cancer (its not demographics or smoking, btw).

Canada has long waits? OK, why not point out how Japan has shorter waits? Or we have the best breast cancer survival rates? Why not point out how the British have lower breast cancer rates? You can cherry pick things that we win and ignore the ones we don't all day long, but it really boils down to this:

1: If you have health insurance here in the states, what you get is about as good as the best available anywhere else.

2: We pay 50% more, and suffer far greater risk, than the citizens of any other industrialized nation.

If you paid 50% more than the guy up the road for your house in a flood plain, and his house was comparable to yours, you would realize you had been robbed. Why is health care any...