I still disagree with this statement, insofar as it makes it seem like Scandinavia is more reliant on the third world than any other imperialist country.
This statement makes it seem like if the us just did enough imperialism it'd finally get healthcare. That's obviously not the case. It works as a shield for the American liberals to explain why they do not have healthcare.

The welfare state was a concession won by labour movements in Scandinavia. These concessions could be afforded due to the fact that the Scandinavian countries benefitted from empire - though such a benefit is not necessary for welfare to be present, as has been shown by the many aes states that provide services for their citizens.
Dismissing this victory of labour as "a product of imperialism" diminishes what we can accomplish. We should critique Scandinavia and be aware that those countries - like the rest of the west - benefit from empire. We should however not correlate the existence with a welfare state with participation in empire.
The largest Scandinavian companies don't pay their taxes, the welfare state is primarily funded for by outsized taxes on the poor and the "middle class". The upper classes in Scandinavia have been embroiled in countless tax fraud scandals.

It's not to say that Scandinavia doesn't benefit from imperialism or that the existence of the countries as they are now aren't reliant on exploitation of the third world - they are.

It is to say that the statement "Scandinavia can only be the way that it is due to imperialism" implies that with sufficient imperialism the us would turn into Scandinavia (it wouldn't) and that Scandinavia somehow does more imperialism than the us or other puppet masters.