I'm pretty sure that "universal health care" --that satisfies the expectations of westworld "consumer-patient" (David Brailer, first US HIT Officer, 2006)-- is NOT affordable, and its modes of delivery are contentious. Which is conversely to admit, that reality does not stop people practicing "health care" everywhere and any how. Having read the article in its entirety, I noticed, the principal interest of The Economist reconciling those differences is capturing markets --not ray-geem change-- for "medical science" that would otherwise be wasted. So there's that promising interpretation of the article.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.