The US absolutely does not have a universal health care system; roughly 33 million remain uninsured, and a large number of those who are insured do not have adequate savings to pay their high deductible (which can be as high as $6,000 per person per year in-network, and twice that out of network).
The Sweden study absolutely does not show that, and I've explained why elsewhere in the thread. The mere fact that something is an RCT does not make it instantly generalizable to all populations, no matter how many times you repeat the claim. You'd need to at least control for pre-intervention access to care and study a US population to even get close to what you're claiming.
What's the mechanism by which you think wealth increases health? It's not getting more healthcare, since if it were Oregon should have increased health.
If it's buying non-medical things, what is the relevance of Sweden's UHC?
You've made numerous unacknowledged factual and logical errors already, and appear to not understand the limits of the RCTs you're citing. I don't see any value in continuing this discussion. Have a great day.
