It seems to me that it's unfair to compare a relatively small, new and homogeneous country such as Singapore with the states, and come to the conclusion that the USA lacks human empathy.
Not only is two of these completely wrong, what does that have to do with anything anyways? The United States is 50 small countries in one big country, there is no reason why a Singapore system could not be done here.
The age of and diversity of a country have nothing to do with its healthcare system.
I'm not saying it's impossible for the US to have a better healthcare system, I'm saying that looking at what Singapour has and then concluding that people in the states lack empathy is not only unfair, but also lacking in perspective.
> The United States is 50 small countries in one big country
Not only are each of the states bigger than Singapour, but they're different to each other and at the same time they're not completely independent of each other.
> The age of and diversity of a country have nothing to do with its healthcare system.
A system that has been in place for a longer period of time, tends to become larger, more complex and harder to change. Moreover, a society that is more heterogeneous will have a harder time agreeing on an issue. Also in a democratic country, the larger the population, the more people you'll have to convince in order to change the status quo.
When can we stop to being so euphemistic and just call it corruption? I do not have to wear my PhD hat in economics to say that the relatively high cost care in the US pays for both the lobbyists' salaries and the now-even-higher dividends of the companies that choose to contract those lobbyists. Workers pay through the nose, rich folk get richer. Democracy subverted once again.
I see this sentiment touted a lot, but is there really that much difference between a Connecticuter and Rhode Islander, or a Mississipian and an Alabamian? A North Dakotan and a South Dakotan?