Yes, good for the EU. It's good to approach new problems with new solutions. Americans worship a decrepit ~250 year old document that was never meant to last that long, and will be left behind because of it.
GDPR isn’t the only set of data privacy laws in the world.
On top of that, many companies are doing a fantastic job at procuring PII through these consent notices. Some of them are downright predatory and give hundreds of companies around the world a mandate to process, store, enrich and sell your private information, including but not limited to things you buy anywhere offline or online, your web history, your location history, your health records, all your social media posts, all your instant messages, everything you’ve ever typed on any of your phones or other mobile devices (except laptops — maybe), and of course any leaked information about you that may be gathered or bought online.
EU vs US GDP growth over the past 15 years, and in fact vs most countries, would strongly suggest Europe is being left behind due to overregulation during an aging crisis.
But hey, why argue in the internet. Let’s let things play out and see where the cards fall
If you give healthcare to all, but the economic burden is too much for your weak economy to support, then your people might be worse off than they would be living in a strong economy but having to buy their own healthcare.
The richest country in the world (ie. USA) have the worst healthcare metrics due to private healthcare (poorer country that have universal healthcare like Italy, have far better metrics). So I suppose it's better to be poor but healty, then dead.
Metrics that take into account cost can sometimes be misleading, because you have to consider more philosophical points like whether a lower or higher cost is actually better?
Remember that from the countrywide economic perspective, most of the cost of healthcare stays within the country, so the cost of healthcare really is just a wealth redistribution effort. Free healthcare means 'redistribute very little wealth from the sick to the healthy' while expensive healthcare means 'redistribute lots of wealth from the sick to the healthy'. Social support schemes like sick pay or disability allowance are doing the reverse.
Countries already have millions of ways of moving wealth from or to people - and schemes like income tax or sales tax tend to be an even bigger dollar amount of wealth redistributed than healthcare costs.
It isn't obvious that there is an 'ideal' number, and comparing some metric like "years of life per dollar spent on healthcare" might therefore be meaningless.
Most standard bodies have published reports confirming that universal healthcare is cheaper for the economy rather than privatized healthcare. Yes, there are less profits for private businesses in universal healthcare and some vested interests will keep representing that angle (with or without a veil).