This article conflates public "essential health" services with universal, state-run healthcare. It also uses nondescript graphs, in image form and with no link to source data, to make sweeping, "correlation equals causation" points about universal health care and life expectancy.
This is an article trying to make an ideological case rather than to discern truth.
"This is an article trying to make an ideological case rather than to discern truth."
Generally Economist is unashamedly political. That's what makes it so good - they don't try to hide the fact that they take a stand. They give you the facts and their arguments, and then it's up to the reader to digest it.
If you disagree with some of the points, I suggest you send them a letter. The letters section of Economist is one of the high points of the magazine as well - they publish rebuttals and corrections no matter how far they stray from the magazines core claim as long as the letter is well written and sanely argumentative.
This is an article trying to make an ideological case rather than to discern truth.