On the other hand 7 year old children have to become entrepreneurs to cover their medical expenses in our non-dysfunctional society:
https://www.cbs42.com/news/local/i-hope-i-make-it-7-year-old...
China's a good example of de jure vs. de facto differences between what is purportedly offered as opposed to what is actually accessible to Chinese citizens.
Like most things there are layers of complication. I think a lot of people would admit that say France, Germany, the UK all seem to have better healthcare systems than the US (though not without their flaws). Moving down a bit maybe Iran and China do too and plausibly that might be what you meant, but I'd wager most countries you might be talking about have worse 50th percentile and maybe even 95th percentile outcomes than the US.
Outcomes in the US are pretty bi-modal, for those who can afford care and those who cannot. This pulls down the country in most rankings, often quite significantly, as many studies weigh access to care in addition to quality for those who can get it. In some ways the system is just objectively bad - it's among the worst for maternal mortality rate in the OECD. [2] I do believe it's improved a bit since then, as that article came out in 2017.
Life expectancy is dropping, and costs are rising. Generally cancer outcomes are regarded as a bright spot for US healthcare but a lot of that is attributable to early detection leading to rosy 5 year survival rates - without commensurate drops in its mortality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_rank...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-r...
I also think I have an impression, and maybe this is motivated thinking again, but that some of the trade off some countries have made is between these sorts of expensive, low impact interventions, vs cheap high impact interventions. Which seems like probably the right tradeoff as a country, but isn't the straight forward better across the board story that I think gets told sometimes