The measures are given. If the US is way down the list due to healthcare, then the other measures should have pulled it up sufficiently to make the top 10 at least ( NOTE: we were number 1 in 1988 ):
Material wellbeing as measured by GDP per head (in $, at 2006 constant PPPS)
Life expectancy at birth
Quality of family life, based primarily on divorce rates; the state of political freedoms; job security (measured by the unemployment rate)
Climate (measured by two variables: the average deviation of minimum and maximum monthly temperatures from 14 degrees Celsius; and the number of months in the year with less than 30mm rainfall)
Personal physical security ratings (based primarily on recorded homicide rates and ratings for risk from crime and terrorism)
Quality of community life (based on membership in social organisations);
Governance (measured by ratings for corruption)
Gender equality (measured by the share of seats in parliament held by women)
Yes, I saw that list, but the devil is in the details. I used WHO as an example because their weighting of data points and methods of measurement worked against the US. To give one example:
The US was considered poor in health care because one of the biggest and heavily weighted metrics was equality of care. IOW, a country that had poor quality health care, but it was poor for everyone, did better than the US because some get the best health care on the planet and some get none.
I guess that's why Israelis were always trying to get exit visas so they could emigrate to the Soviet Union.