Let me counter that by asking if you realise that there are other avenues to achieve the 'net effect' of 'Scandinavian capitalism' beyond linking their success to 'population size' when it is clear that there is a societal belief and attitude in their system?
The basic difference in the model, is that Denmark (as an example) believes that all its citizens have equal access to the sort of services which underpin a society (education, healthcare, housing) as part of a belief in there being a universal right to these regardless of their social or fiscal situations. There is a collective buy-in, not only on that belief, but also on the fact that society benefits when this is the model. IF that is the prevailing attitude behind a society's approach, I'd counter that whether you have 10 or 100 million people, the model can be scaled to work. It's about investing in a society, not an individual.
The biggest difference is that somewhere along the line (most probably the Thatcher era) the whole concept of social services somehow became semi-stigmatised (via avenues ranging from 'encouraging laziness' to a projection of it almost being a 'shameful' thing in some instances).
...with regards to your hospital analogy, my thought is that if we stopped paying bricky second-party contractors to execute important services, and if we encouraged and educated people about the necessity of preventative care from an early age, then you wouldn't need such reactive (and potentially over-expensive, open to abusive costs) hospital care.
Long conversation.
www.telegraph.co.uk
