Apparently, anyone with a source can add anything on here (except me, of course, since  has repeatedly deleted cited statements that I've added on this page). 

, you should take a statistics course, because there is an objective means of ascertaining the income level at which heart disease cause more deaths than infectious disease. It's quite simple: you find out the number of deaths in each group, and then compare the numbers. While I don't know if the numbers to do that are available to perform such a comparison, I do know that there is an objective "scientific" method for dealing with the issue. There may be outliers as you've pointed out, but the number afforded through the statistical method is still a firm cut off point (and one supported by conventional social science techniques). 

As you yourself have claimed, "there may be some agencies that have drawn dollar boundaries between industrial and developed countries, but I don't know if they make sense." They don't make sense because the cut off is arbitrary. What is "poverty?" What is "wealth?" These are all normative concepts with no rigid definitions. Using a malleable definition to harangue a definition is just crass beyond belief. Pick a number and defend it. Don't take me for a ride. 

, your suggestion gives me pause but it's acceptable, because I have no desire of going on and on with editors who are intent on foisting opinions on this article.  It does have some issues, namely, the United States does have publicly-funded health care. It does not have so-called universal health care. If that's corrected though, I'll accept it.