It is highly dubious that this is some feature of the expense of medical care in the US. For example, it's generally recommended that for surgery, you actually want to see a doctor who works in the public system (in Australia, my country) because for routine procedures the guy who does them everyday, all the time, is probably a lot better at it then the guy who can choose his cases.
The US has a giant population with first-world levels of funding from the government - it's fairly likely that care quality is simply the intersection of population and experience. But you pay more from the government per person, and get less. Your system and outcomes should be so much better and you all should be angry about that. It's just at some level of size and overall budget, you get a lot despite being inefficient.
> . For example, it's generally recommended that for surgery, you actually want to see a doctor who works in the public system (in Australia, my country) because for routine procedures the guy who does them everyday, all the time, is probably a lot better at it then the guy who can choose his cases.
While I agree that this is the case, the people who are willing to travel for medical care are likely not traveling for routine cases; they are going to see specialists for complex cases. The quality of care varies substantially across the US, and I do think the top tier facilities in the US are some of the best (if not the best) in the world. That says nothing about the average level of care across the country however, and it is typically difficult to get access to these premiere hospitals unless you know someone with connections in medicine or have money.
Be careful even in non-routine cases. The specialist in question may select his patients based on qualifiers that are in his interest. One of them is the likelihood of recovery - high likelihood improves their track record and thus their standing as a specialist.
This is fair point, but at a hospital-level in the US you do tend to see higher mortality levels at prestigious hospitals due to the increase in average case complexity. People are willing to take on the tougher cases.
The US has a giant population with first-world levels of funding from the government - it's fairly likely that care quality is simply the intersection of population and experience. But you pay more from the government per person, and get less. Your system and outcomes should be so much better and you all should be angry about that. It's just at some level of size and overall budget, you get a lot despite being inefficient.