I don't really know what to make of it. The closest thing I can think of that applies here is "equal access".
The problem arises when I start applying the notion to individual examples; the statements start sounding a bit polemical.
i.e. we don't believe in providing healthcare only to those who have enough money (considering how in the US it's not even "everyone who works", but "everyone who works and gets healthcare"), but to everyone,
or "we don't believe that parents should be the only ones who pay for their children's education." That is, I know few countries where undergraduate degree tuition fees are significantly above €2000 or so per year, (UK excepted) with most being slightly or well below that. Which I consider a significant enough difference with the US. That said, we also don't really have scholarships, nor do we have an "ivy league," as all unis are more or less comparable in the standards they set.
sidenote: on the High school front (age ~12-18) we (in holland and germany) are actually a bit different, as we separate the different 'tracks' in HS based on (probable) ability (the estimate comes from a test for 11-12yos). I never really get why you'd want to put everyone in the same HS classes anyway; all it seems to require is that you either lower standards or have more dropouts.
Sidenote2: we've now (since 4 years or so) got 2 of those silly "colleges" that charge €30.000 a year for dorms+tuition+being generally marvelous. That said, I hear very little from them that makes me envious of the kids that go there (they seem to be mostly the same type as G.W. was, sent there more because of parental pretentiousness than genuine merit). Offers mostly lib arts undergraduate degrees. ("knowing a little of everything"...)
Anyway, to get back on topic: We definitely value achievement here, we just put less emphasis on it; what I suspect is the biggest difference is 1) we don't
equate achievement with income, and 2) that we have a larger group of people who have enjoyed an undergraduate-equivalent educational background, or are more or less on that "intellectual level" (if you'll allow me that somewhat awkward description), who don't all feel they need to excel in order to feel happy. That is, there's less of a dichotomy, or mutual resentment (I can't really think of a word that applies here, but basically the difference between the jock and the nerd write large, where, to exaggerate, the jock harrasses the nerd until the end of HS, after which they never meet again, and the nerd will always think less of jocks afterward) between the "underclass" and the "educated class". While that difference is probably overemphasized, there is a very tangible undercurrent or seeding ground in which you can much more easily "accuse" an american of "elitism", and this will usually stick/
work. I can't think of an analogous education-related
slur that exists here. It's one of the things that struck me when Kerry was voted off: sure, the guy was a bit awkward, but why would you want to accuse him of having brains and being raised in the "american way" (that is, by parents with money who ensured he got a "good" education and met the right friends)?
Anyway, while this might not seem related to our valuing "the norm" rather than "outliers", I suspect it is, and I suspect that "valuing outliers" is true of less parts of American culture than suggested by the proffered generalization. "healthcare isn't a right, it's something you have to earn" sounds more like a rationalization/excuse to me (for the fact that you in your current system can't afford it) than a real "fact". Sure, healthcare wasn't there in the 1800s, but
things change. Whereas education was once something reserved for the rich, it's now (at least legally) for everyone; similarly for healthcare.
Again, the whole country benefits from having a healthy work force (if you'll forgive the fact I don't refer to people as people), similarly for education. Exceptions aside, educated people will be more productive, and more able, than uneducated ones. The whole current fear seems to be that all unskilled labor is leaving the USA: the reason GM can't be allowed to die like it should is because the people who worked there have nowhere else to go, because there's nothing else they can do. While I'm not saying we
anticipated this whereas you ignored it, I am saying that having 20-30% of the population only capable of manual labor is a waste of resources, if only because they'll need welfare.
The whole point of "outliers" is that they
are. Statistics might be deceitfully quoted, but
the bell curve doesn't lie, if nothing else. And believing you should only care about the upper outliers means you're creating a culture in which 50-60% of the population will to some extent probably feel un(der)appreciated.