An eye opener for me was when I compared the Belgium system compared to the Dutch system.
In Belgium physicians have to negotiate contracts with the insurance companies, making them compete with one another. While the system is still a form of social healthcare (premiums are deducted from wage and are compulsory), it's a step in the right direction. That's why a lot of Belgian hospitals treat many Dutch patients. Healthcare is more accessible and generally of good quality. This is a prime indicator that the Belgian care is better then the Dutch care.
Hard data is hard to come by, because organizations that measure these figures are so hell bent on GDP and income per capita. I've made up my mind based on the many things I've read and my personal experiences with our system over the years.
Which clearly shows that the Netherlands is amongst the lowest in the world, and clearly superior to the US. In fact, most of the countries at the top of that list have some form of socialized health care. So this obviously wasn't the thing that made you decide that socialized health care is bad. So what was it?
It was an example of a quality measurement, if you want to see it as proof of a working social healthcare system, one should also compare it to costs as a percentage of income. Then you could judge at what cost you are saving those lives. Then one could make an objective observation of which system is the best solution.
The reason I came to the conclusion that our healthcare system is worse, is because we are struggling to pay for it all. There are talks of increasing our contributions to the healthcare, while they are already at a large sum of our income.