Mage-CPA

The argument that universal healthcare would be cheaper appears to be a foregone conclusion. Plus, it makes sense, since there should be lower administrative fees.

However, looking at various data, it is unclear which system is more economically efficient. 

This is what I have found:

1. Brand drugs are generally cheaper abroad than in the US (for drugs with available generics, not sure about no alternatives)

2. Generic drugs are generally cheaper in the US than abroad.

3. Foreign government have cost/efficiency standards which limit expensive drugs. For example, if a drug is estimated to add one year of life, it cannot cost more than $5,000 per treatment/pill.

4. Medical procedures cost more in the US, but generally less than twice as much.

5. Per capita, the US spends about four times more on healthcare than other nations (and a good chunk have no access to healthcare).

6. Most countries with universal healthcare have about 25% of their healthcare privately funded.

7. The US has higher success rates of cancer and other costly illnesses.

8. The US has more costly machines, and also appear to use them more, per capita

The problem I run into is I cannot reconcile where (or how) money is saved, nor can I compare apples to apples.

The major problem is identifying what "healthcare" expenses are, and of course, if they are applied evenly for comparison. Only one source I found mentions explicitly research is part of the equation for the US, but it does not say how much that is, if research is more or less than other nations (or even if other nations spend on research), nor if that includes drug companies' R & D.

I would love to see a breakdown of the US's expenses, along other nations, to get a feel of where we spend more, what can be saved, and the likelihood that savings will occur and the impact of such savings. For example, how much can be saved in admin and how many jobs are lost due to it?

Other things to consider, because the US is not the same as other nations:

1. Additional costs due to general unhealthiness of the USA

2. Additional use of healthcare in the US exempt from other nations, for example, prescription drug abuse and gun shot wounds

3. Population density - larger swaths of low population areas than other nations

4. Impact to other nations' costs - the evidence suggests US citizens are subsidizing drug costs

5. Most medical advancements are from the US, and these advancements cost money, and are likely added to the healthcare price tag. 

6. Costs associated with drug testing

7. Use of ridiculously expensive drugs (although this may or may not be higher or lower than other nations)

All I ever really hear is the broad statement that the US spends more than other nations, which is easily misinterpreted due to its broadness. I attempted to reconcile the numbers, and was off by about $200 billion with making unreasonable assumptions, which is about 10% of healthcare expense. A large gap, but if my numbers were correct, the US will still be spending more than other nations per capita by a noticeable degree, will have to raise taxes by about 30%, and it is unclear just how much is saved.  

Does anyone know of a source that offers a breakdown of healthcare costs by research, drugs, services, equipment, buildings, and admin and compares them to other nations?

Of course, the argument for universal healthcare is two-fold - one is cost, the other is "rights", and I am only addressing the former. 
Personally, I go back and forth, but I am curious as to the legitimacy of the arguments offered.