Did you read this, I think you should consider it at least, this one is from the wikipedia link you posted.

"Criticism

The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[4]

Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the right-wing Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]

Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[8] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments"

Even if the US does spend more money per capita on health care than any other country, setting up the system to be controlled by the government is very dangerous. Consider European country's right now. Most of them have a government run health care system of one kind or another, what do you think is going to happen to that system (and inevitably the citizens) when those country's go bankrupt like Greece. The government wont be able to pay to employ any nurse or doctors, let alone buy supplies and equipment. There is a possibility that doctor's and nurses will volunteer there expertise and services ( then the expenditures per capita really will be low. LOL) but the quality of care will be third world level. I know we can figure out some way to make health care in the US more affordable without socializing it. Maybe we could stop suing doctors or get rid of the nurses union.

When i was 20 my appendix ruptured, after surgery I owed 19,000.00. At the time I made 10,000.00 a year and i had no insurance, but I was able to set up a payment plan of twenty five dollars a month. I pay more when I can but there is no interest and even though I may be paying it fro the rest of my life I would rather be paying that money directly to the hospital then to the bureaucracy of the government.