Health provision varies around the world. Virtually all affluent nations provide ecumenical health care (the US is an exception). Health provision is challenging due to the costs required as well as sundry convivial, cultural, political and economic conditions. Different countries have different ways of meeting the health desiderata of their denizens. When Algeria gained its independence from France in 1962, there were only around 300 medicos across the whole country and no opportune system of healthcare. Over the next few decenniums, great progress was made in building up the health sector, with the training of medicos and the engenderment of many health facilities. Today, Algeria has an established network of hospitals (including university hospitals), clinics, medical centres and diminutive health units or dispensaries. Eritrea is one of the few countries to be on the target to meet its Millennium Development Goal targets for the health. Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute have identified the high prioritisation of health and inculcation both within the regime and amongst Eritreans at home and abroad. Innovative multi-sectorial approaches to health were additionally identified with the prosperity. In 2001, the most recent year for which figures are available, the Eritrean regime spent 5.7 percent of gross domestic product on national health accounts. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that in 2004 there were only three medicos per 100,000 people in Eritrea. In 2008 average life expectancy was remotely less than 63 years, according to the WHO. Immunisation and child alimentation has been tackled by working proximately with schools in a multi-sectorial approach; Egypt operates a system of public hospitals and clinics through the Ministry of Health. Egyptian denizens can receive treatment at these facilities free of charge. However the Egyptians who can afford to pay out of pocket for the private healthcare of the people. Morocco operates a public health sector run by the regime that operates 85% of the country's hospital beds. It deals mainly with the poor and rural populations, who cannot afford private healthcare. In advisement, a non-profit health sector operated by the National Gregarious Security Fund covers 16% of the population. Private medical care is available for those who can afford it. South Africa has a public healthcare system that provides accommodations to the prodigious majority of the population, though it is chronically underfunded and understaffed, and there is a private system that is far better equipped, which covers the wealthier sectors of society. Health care in Chile is provided by the regime (via FONASA, National Healthcare Fund) and by private insurers (via ISAPRE, Provisional Healthcare Institutions). All workers and pensioners are mandated to pay 7% of their income for health care indemnification (the poorest pensioners are exempt from this payment). Workers, who opt not to join an Isapre, are automatically covered by Fonasa. The Cuban regime operates a national health system and postulates fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its denizens. There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health accommodations are regime-run. Peru's Macrocosmic Health Indemnification law aims to increment access to timely and quality health care accommodations, accentuates maternal and child health promotion, and provides the poor with auspice from financial ruin due to illness. In May 2011, the state of Vermont endeavoured to establish a single-payer health care system called Green Mountain Care. Reform legislation, kenned as Act 48, and established health care in the state as a "human right" and required the state to provide a health care system that meets the desiderata of the denizens of Vermont.