Of course, you want to look at statistics other than life expectancy (infant mortality stands out as one where our rates are shockingly high given our general economic wellbeing). And in fairness, the article you linked to does. But two points.

The first: there are just so many follow-on questions which cut to the heart of the matter (are we getting good value for our expenditures, and is our system as good as it could be). The first is to what degree the statistics are hiding some big differences between the health-care haves and have-nots in this country – if you factor out everybody without routine access to medical care, you’d have a group more like the British population (whatever the quality of the care, everyone does have access to it). The second is how variations in public health statistics compare to variations in spending – the magnitude of the latter is really dramatic, are the results equally dramatic? If not it suggests that there is a lot of room for improvement.

My second point: Chapman doesn’t take the statistics and turn them into a ‘we’re the best, shut up stupid reformers!’ cudgel. But it’s a bit weird to see him criticizing Obama for use of the statistics; his argument points out the general problem of comparing such statistics, but Obama (and most of us who support reform) are at least trying to take what data we have to take an objective look at things, and the counter-argument in the political sphere has been “the government will take over health care so that death panels can decide to put Grandma to sleep while establishing a socialist paradise with gulags where we’re all forced to get EKGs.” Or something like that.

Whatever one things of the arguments coming from the president, they at least have some bearing on reality, something that’s in short supply from his opposition. Which is a shame, because an informed debate would serve the public well.

Perhaps a good first step would be to stop making Britain the whipping boy, given that there is no proposal with any support at all to create something like the British system in the US (which I happen to think is a good thing, despite having a whole extended family of UK NHS users who are generally glad that they have it)? Could we at least look at a system that combines private delivery and private insurance with regulations along the lines of what is being proposed?

IIRC one apples and oranges factor that comes up is in the US we try to save babies from shockingly early terms and count any lost as infant mortality and as reduction in life expectancy. If you don’t count 23 week babies who die in your country’s stats, of course they look better.