EDIT: And, since it apparently wasn't clear from context, by "best of both worlds", I mean that it manages to get a competitive, consumer oriented system without sacrificing universal coverage and regulation of quality.
> Life expectancy correlates nicely with wellness.
It may correlate reasonably well, but there are plenty of ways life expectancy can be the same for systems with very different level of "wellness". For a long time, Sweden had special wards for people in persistent vegetative states because there was no provision for ending care, for example, resulting in people being kept alive for years long than they otherwise would. I believe they loosened the requirements for ending care quite a while ago. But there are plenty of other ways that life expectancy can correlate badly with "wellness", e.g. poor treatment of patents with long term conditions such as dementia where patients can often easily survive for a decade or more but where quality of life can be massively different depending on treatment.
In the free market you could argue that 'customer satisfaction' is the only measure of effectiveness you need to consider. Equating customer satisfaction with best solution fails in everything from automobile ratings to elections.
This is laughably wrong. The biggest influence on life expectancy isn't the medical system at all - it's the lifestyle habits of the populace. Genetics play a big role as well.
There are only two measures of effectiveness.
Per capita costs and life expectancy.
How does Switzerland rate?