1. The U.S. has a much higher portion of its population living in exurban and rural areas where top-quality health care services may not be readily available. Countries with large portions of their citizens living in urban areas tend to rank very high on any list of health statistics based on life expectancy -- mainly because someone who suffers a serious illness or injury is far more likely to receive immediate care in an urban area than in a rural area.
2. The U.S. ranks relatively poorly in life expectancy and infant mortality compared to other industrial nations simply because we have much more of a libertarian outlook than other countries (and are far less homogenized), which means we have a much higher incidence of almost any physical/psychological pathology that could potentially reduce a person's life expectancy. For example, as recently as a few years ago a term like "crack baby" couldn't even be translated into Japanese -- because there was never any need to come up with a term to describe something that doesn't exist in that culture.
Ping.
France has a higher percentage of its population living in rural areas and engaged in agriculture than the United States does. This does not drag down the life expectancy figures.
But it is fine if you don't want to use infant mortality and life expectancy as measures to compare quality of care.
I am sure that anecdote will not suffice either.
So, what objective standard can we use to compare across systems?