good point - I like that site!
Now, for the flip side of the argument, the
poverty rate in Australia is lower
than it is here. Not by much, but then, their people
mostly don't have to worry about affording health care.
But there's something else to think about, too - just because a place has a high cost of living doesn't mean it's a bad place to live.
Here's the ranking of nations by cost of living...and almost all of the ones with the highest cost of living are first-world nations with the highest standards of living (Venezuela's gotta be a statistical outlier), whereas the ones with the lowest cost of living are without exception third-world nations.
In other words, "nanny-statism" obviously generally enables nations to be more stable and to have a higher standard of living for their population.
There is one and only one downside that I see to the high-tax, high-regulation, strong-social-safety-net governmental systems of first-world democracies: consumption. It's been said that in order for everyone to live a first-world lifestyle, we'd need three Earths. So what can be done, what the end result may be, I simply don't know. But I do know that life is healthier, safer, and in many ways better in first-world socialized democracies than in any other country you care to name.