Economists thought of that; the US is still very high income "after taxes and transfers" and most healthcare costs in the US aren't out of pocket anyway.

> Economists thought of that; the US is still very high income "after taxes and transfers"

You only have to look at the definition in their link to see that US healthcare costs don't get adjusted for.

> most healthcare costs in the US aren't out of pocket anyway.

Right, most people pay health insurance in a way that's indistinguishable from paying taxes in practice (although the US system also comes with significant out-of-pocket costs, so just including insurance costs wouldn't tell the full story). But that "disposable income" metric is defined in a way that considers US-style health insurance voluntary and therefore money spent on that is disposable income (even though it never actually hits someone's bank account in practice), whereas in a country with tax-funded healthcare or mandatory health insurance (unless it qualifies as "social insurance", but normally it doesn't) the costs of that aren't counted in that person's income.

No, it’s in spite of US spending more in taxes on healthcare than what some developed countries use to cover their entire population.

You’re both saying the same thing

That is a "yes even though" not a no