Back to the topic. You know it's really straightforward. Rather than quote articles at each other why not stick to the basics. The US seems to prefer a health system which is operated for profit by private companies on a user pays basis. Much of the rest of the world (I'm generalising) prefers a socialised approach to funding health care delivery which can take various forms.

The US consistently lags many other countries in key indicators of public health. It lags behind other countries with far less wealthy economies. That's because top class health care is available to those who can afford it while those who can't afford it have to get what they can. The elites, the corporate and political elites, are doing fine. They can afford the finest health care in the US and they buy it. But the finest health care in the US isn't available to those who can't afford it. If that's how you like it then fine, no problems. But don't express cynicism about those world-wide key indicators of public health. Some of us think health care isn't a right, that it should be purchased, like any other commodity and if you can't afford to buy it then you go without or you get second-rate care. Some of us think that access to good health care is part of the social contract and its cost should be borne by society. Fine, go with what works for you.