Comparing ethnically homogenous countries to the US is meaningless and downright deliberately misleading at best. There is significant variation in every state by race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
Life expectancy and overall heath in the US is strongly correlated to wealth. It’s a feedback loop, being poor directly results in worse access to healthcare etc, but also because it’s much harder for sick people to hold down a job etc.
Edit: Bottom 5 states by life expectancy vs their median household income rank (#). West Virginia 74.8 years (#50) Mississippi 74.9 years (#49) Alabama 75.4 years (#44) Kentucky 75.4 years (#43) Arkansas 75.9 years (#48). It’s not perfectly correlated but the relationship is very strong.
PS: Great Britain actually has significantly more ethnic diversity than WV and lower median household income than WV yet life expectancy is more than 5 years longer.
At least it’d be a new twist on an old racist trope.
"If it weren't for all those black people and immigrants we'd actually be really good! Those other countries are just too 'homogenous'. "
And then somehow this fact apparently dismisses other countries efforts at providing universal/preventative healthcare and initiatives that the US simply does not.
Because a) that's how it works and b) most people replying to you are drawing the opposite conclusion. Either way, you've done a poor job of expressing yourself here.
However, they are still all US Citizen, there is nothing misleading about the article or their analysis unless you want them to start splitting the stats by 'race', which would be a strange starting point (why would ethnic background be a better way to group people than socio-economic brackets anyway?).
Trenchant, if unintentional, observation :)
That said, it doesn't really invalidate what the article is talking about.