the downmodding seems a tad unfair, given that the article also made a reference to size being an advantage: > Singapore is also very small, and the population

the downmodding seems a tad unfair, given that the article also made a reference to size being an advantage: > Singapore is also very small, and the population may be healthier in general than in some other countries. It’s a little easier to run a health care system like that. but what I don't get is why so many people will simply say this without any further evidence that this is true. if size is a benefit, will a country with a population of 1 have an extremely efficient healthcare system? how about a country with a population of 10? obviously no. But does it get better at 1m people? 10m? 100m? I think the size of the US is a red herring, and there are so many other reasons why the US doesn't work, like the way the healthcare economy is structured, social contribution, population sprawl, etc that size offers no economies of scale advantage and in fact works against it. Under the right conditions, being larger really should help a healthcare system, not hurt it.