Bubba: In the U.S., 1/6 (17 percent) of infant deaths are associated with babies being pre-term or low-birth weight (source: CDC, page 14). If you exclude EVERY one of these infant deaths, the U.S. still has an infant death rate that is substantially higher than the U.K. The statistical problem that you describe only affects calculations at the margin. If you think that it's unfair to compare our "heterogeneous" population to the U.K.'s, you could look at the white infant mortality rate in the U.S., which is 5.56 per thousand births, still above the U.K. rate. And you haven't addressed the point about the U.K. having a higher life expectancy rate, despite having a per capita GDP that is 25 percent below ours and health expenditures that are far far below ours. Yes, some deaths, including death rates for cancer, are higher in the U.K. But others are lower. Again, life expectancy in the U.K. is nearly a year higher than here. You would expect the 143 percent more that the U.S. spends per capita on health care than the Brits do to buy some good outcomes.

Bubbs: Since you bring it up, here is a comparison of vital statistics in the U.K. and the U.S.: U.S.: Infant mortality: 6.26 per 1,000 births Life expectancy at birth: 78.11 years GDP per capita: $47,000. U.K.: Infant mortality: 4.85 per 1,000 births Life expectancy at birth: 79.01 years GDP per capita: $36,6000. We have substantially greater wealth yet worse health outcomes. What wankers the Brits are.