> There is no Mississippi in Germany, those populations are in other countries.
It depends on what you mean by that comparison. Germany relatively recently absorbed a much poorer East Germany. There are still states like Mecklenburg-Vorpommern that are much poorer than the average in Germany. Yet they're all integrated into Germany's very good healthcare system. It could be the same in the US, but it isn't, for political reasons.
> If you compare the whole European Union to the US the disparity is much smaller.
This is not true. The European Union member states have a much greater range of GDP/capita than US states.
But even if you dealt with a broker and crafted a special insurance insurance product to deal with the eventuality of being denied further insurance, you are ignoring something significant: you don't improve the quality of life or lifespan of the population by making healthcare only accessible to the rich.
But you don’t need a US passport to access that, just a decent one.
Does it actually?
I assume that disparity is more to do with the populations of impoverished people around this very diverse country that can't compare to smaller European countries that just don't have those populations.
There is no Mississippi in Germany, those populations are in other countries.
If you compare the whole European Union to the US the disparity is much smaller.
>It’s a funny fear, because today, being in the US vs. some other developed country takes about 7-8 years off your life.
I think that is an exaggeration, I can't find that statistic anywhere.
But you have to look at people in your demographic, not the entire country.
The US has the best health care in the world if you can afford it.
Just about anybody can get insurance and set aside the max out of pocket costs to insure themselves and their family, but they will take a considerable hit in quality of life, home size, luxuries, etc. In other countries that health care is paid for with lowered salaries through taxes and quality of life takes a hit anyway.