To be fair, most health outcomes are directly related to financial issues: controlling for all other variables, it's the single most consistent predictor.
If you look at pretty much any general population level outcome, a country with a high concentration of health insurance (as proxy for financial resource to get healthcare) is going to have bad "average" outcomes.
If you look at metrics that select a sample that tends to have access to healthcare (e.g., cancer tends to cluster in over-65s, who have access to Medicare and, at greater rates than the general population, Medicaid), you're going to get a look at "what the healthcare technology is like in that country for people with access to it."
It's entirely fair to point out that average outcomes suck for average people because "average" access to healthcare is "really shitty access to healthcare."
It's also fair to point out that if you change how the system operates, it's not unreasonable to ask whether you'll change the system's strong points, which may well be "technically sophisticated care for those that actually have access."
My position on this is a third, orthogonal position (which is that how you pay for care and the operations that produce that care are not unrelated, and fractured, free-market operations produce fractured care, and that operations have much more day-to-day impact on healthcare outcomes than technical sophistication.) But it's unrelated to the above.