To your stuff about Sweden and refugees, income and wealth are related but separate concepts.
As to your changing the goal posts by talking about healthcare. There is nothing “perverse and dishonest” about measuring which country is the “richest” based on capacity for consumption. The vast majority of Americans, even at the 20th percentile, will never go bankrupt due to medical bills. But they will all get to enjoy much higher consumption (bigger houses, more cars, more TVs) than the average European. (And maybe, just maybe, Americans aren’t irrational and simply prefer the trade off they have made.)
Now, you may personally value the security of not having the possibility of crippling medical debt over the potential for higher consumption. I probably would too! But it’s not so obviously the only correct way to view things that it would be “perverse” and “objectively dishonest” to measure which country is the “richest” in a way that doesn’t place dispositive value on that security. Put differently, you’re simply defining “being rich” as “being secure.” That’s not the only way to define it.
Also, France has slums too: https://www.thelocal.fr/20171020/more-than-570-slums-house-1.... Any assertion that the French are better off than Bangladesh must be “false.”
That’s not to say we shouldn’t “do something” about their living condition, just that your post is a non-sequitor. When Sweden accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees, the median income of the country almost certainly went down. But that doesn’t mean everyone became poorer.