They also tend to have less sprawl, more homogenous and high trust societies (relative to where most people live in the US), and a shaky history of true legally enforced disability considerations. On that latter part, there still isn’t a good equivalent to the ADA in European peer countries. Europeans will hand wave it away, but it’s too patchwork and exclusionary.
All things in this scope considered (i.e., not healthcare necessarily), I’d rather be disabled in the US than in Europe or most Asian countries because the US actually have strong legal protections both federally and at the state levels. Lack of extensive public transport outside of a couple major hubs is obviously a problem for most people (especially the disabled). But no other country comes close to enshrining protections like the US did with the ADA (and how some states extended it even more themselves).
Why? There would need to be some kind of pressure one way or another unless it is totally inconsequential. One pressure would be that organisms would be fitter with the ability to conceal and deceive. That would lend credence to what you’re suggesting; process and compress locally, filter locally, send only when advantageous.
But the opposite pressure might be social exclusion which makes individual members of a cohort weaker.
The real question is: what does an organism gain one way or the other? There’s only tradeoffs in evolution. Is the mental and physical tax of local processing worth it, or is the hive-mind style survival benefits more beneficial to reproduction and expansion?