[mseebach]

> There are only two measures of effectiveness. Per capita costs and life expectancy.

Uh, no. Health care is a lot more than keeping people alive.

Cost: More expensive than the European average, quite a bit cheaper than the US.

Life expectancy: second in the world, at 81.81.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...

EDIT: And, since it apparently wasn't clear from context, by "best of both worlds", I mean that it manages to get a competitive, consumer oriented system without sacrificing universal coverage and regulation of quality.

[specialist]

Life expectancy correlates nicely with wellness.

Adopt the phrase "patient oriented system" and I'm totally on board.

[vidarh]

> Life expectancy correlates nicely with wellness.

It may correlate reasonably well, but there are plenty of ways life expectancy can be the same for systems with very different level of "wellness". For a long time, Sweden had special wards for people in persistent vegetative states because there was no provision for ending care, for example, resulting in people being kept alive for years long than they otherwise would. I believe they loosened the requirements for ending care quite a while ago. But there are plenty of other ways that life expectancy can correlate badly with "wellness", e.g. poor treatment of patents with long term conditions such as dementia where patients can often easily survive for a decade or more but where quality of life can be massively different depending on treatment.

[specialist]

Defining "wellness", I can do no better than rely on societal norms.

I've spent much time in critical care, as both a patient and an advocate.

Quality of life is of utmost importance. I support DNRs, euthanasia, and so forth.

But I would not presume to impose my values on anyone else.

[adventured]

Switzerland is likely first in the world. Japan's number is bogus, it's artificially inflated by rampant benefits fraud.