Why would it behove me to validate a position when the author clearly could not bother himself?

He offered no evidence for many of his claims, certainly nothing to support his line of reasoning that 'life expectancy is short ergo health care is bad'.

Every verse a canard.

These kinds of articles pop up every year or so in the New Yorker, NYT, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy - I have (we have) been reading them since I was a teenager.

But for your convenience:

1) 'life expectancy' is a function of violence (young people dying in violence pulls averages a lot), general health and lifestyle choices, and finally healthcare.

Americans are violent, and they have very poor diets, and are sedentary - this is the 'big differentiator' in health outcomes.

But the lie is worse, because the quality of healthcare in the United States (for those who have it) is actually very high - it's the best in the world. I've received mid-level healthcare services in four modern nations including the US, and it's clear the US is by far 'the best' system in most ways, obviously, except for cost, and coverage.

Whatever problem it is that you have, chances are almost 100% that you're better off in America than anywhere else - with the presumption you can afford it, of course, but most people can, just not all.

2) The author also misrepresented the nature of 'cost' in American healthcare. When healthcare is socialised, costs are limited and regulated, of course the government is going to ultimately 'spend less' per capita. In Canada, it's literally illegal to pay a doctor to provide you almost any service. If it were legal for citizens to buy health services, spending would increase dramatically.

And then of course is the completely dysfunctional insurance system - but it's been that way for quite a long time: 'expensive healthcare' is not a sign of 'American decline'. It's a perrenial sign of 'screwed up capitalism'.

3) This one is basically ridiculous: "America is unique among the world’s dominant powers of the past 500 years in its repeated failure to achieve military objectives over decades."

Literally the opposite is true: the English, French, Spaniards, Hapbsbourgs, Swedish, Russians, Chinese etc. - everyone of them had material military setbacks among their successes.

More specifically: North Korea invaded the South, and from 5000 miles away, the Americans were able to ultimately re-establish - and hold - the integrity of the South. South Korea, along with Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong (all Anglo-American protectorates to one degree or another) are shinning examples of prosperity in Asia.

4) Vietnam is very poorly misunderstood no thanks to a lot of bad movies and misleading documentaries. The Americans, with some effort, were able to hold South Vietnam free from Communist overthrow. They pummelled the North into submission at great cost to human life. This was in the early 1970's long after the US withdrew the majority of its forces, and casualties had been reduced to a trickle compared to the 10's of thousands of dead in 1968. The war was essentially over.

Domestic policy, and a 'war wary' US public demanded withdrawal , even after establishing a fairly hard-won peace. After the US fully withdrew from Vietnam, the North regrouped, and then trounced the South. If America were to have left the relatively small number of troops in Vietnam - again with almost all conflict having ceased i.e. very few casualties - S. Vietnam might resemble, at least somewhat, the S. Korea of today.

This was not a 'failure' - it was 'folly'. Though it was probably a bad choice to invade, it was also a bad choice to fully withdraw.

Just as Americans were far too willing to invade Iraq (a mistake), Barack Obama's decision to withdraw when he did was also a mistake, driven at least to some extent by populism. Literally the day after US troops withdrew, Iraqi PM Malaki purged his government of Sunni rivals, causing a 'political civil war' which started to get violent, leaving the Sunni areas more afraid of Iraqi Government Troops (i.e. Shia) - and so the Sunni tribes allowed ... guess who (!?) to move in: ISIS! They literally felt they would be safer under the Iraqi branch of ISIS. Of course, with US troops gone, Iran was free to meddle directly in Iraqi affairs, which leads to 'Sulimani in Iraq'.

Were Obama to have left only 15K soldiers, sitting safely 'behind the wire', not doing much, he could have maintained leverage over the Iraqi government and required them to compromise. Instead - it fell apart.

ISIS would have remained a Syrian phenom, and not entered Iraq. Iran would have had a much harder time in Iraq than the free hand they have today.

But this 'debacle in Iraq' is not remotely a sign of 'waning American power'. The opposite! America in 2003 rolled through Iraq in three weeks. It was one of the most astonishing and spectacular victories in world history. Never has a 'world power' been able to walk across the planet, steamroll over a major nation and obliterate a large military force so quickly. That the Americans were not able to quell subsequent local violence and insurgencies isn't a failure, I don't think anyone could have done this.

American actions in Iraq demonstrated folly, not American incapacity.

With drone capabilities, a global presence, it's pretty incredible (for better or worse) what American power can do in 2020.

5) 'Education'. Again, very misrepresentative.

The US is ahead of most of the world in terms of the % of it's population it sends to College. [1] Germany has 'free Uni' but only about 25% get to go. In the US, it's a lot more. The US still has most of the best Universities, that's not changing.

There is ample data to demonstrate that most test scores in the US are generally going up over time, with some bumps here and there [2].

The gap between White and Latino/African American has also been shrinking over time.

6) Inequality. Though inequality is an increasing problem in some ways, it's not an American phenom. Europe generally has the same problem, and it's all offset by the fact that overall, people's lives are improving and certain kinds of toxic inequality - like racial divisions, are narrowing. The gap between White/Black/Latino incomes is also narrowing, as it is in education.

...

If the author would bother to look at some data, he might be able to characterises the issue of 'American decline' a little better by putting it in context: even as the American economy grows at a reasonable pace, 'the rest of the world' is coming along quickly.

America is not 'losing', rather, the rest of the world is just starting to 'win'.

This is the 'big picture' chart that sets the tone for what is happening [3].

And more generally [4]

There are vast quantities of 'new economic citizens' in this world, and a couple billion coming out of deep poverty.

This, and in particular the rise of China obviously that is really the dynamic that changes America's context vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

America has many problems, but it's not 'in decline', far from it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...

[2] https://www.brookings.edu/research/2018-brown-center-report-...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/02/29/u-s-role-...

[4]https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPSH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVE...