The first sentence was a point I was going to raise, but you’ve managed to put a uniquely American spin on it. The limitation on medicare negotiating for drug prices is purely political in nature, and can be eliminated any time the US really wants to do so. I can’t imagine a situation in which you’d have the political capital to push through UHC, but not eliminate this silly restriction.
This is one big reason why the proposed costs for US medicare for all seems so far out of line with the equivalent systems in the UK and Canada: on a per-person basis, medicare is already more expensive, and if you’re just projecting that forward, of course it gets even worse.
This is another factor not given enough consideration. Completely aside from the relative cost, and the lack of coverage for so many people, there are other factors that make the US system a bad idea. Number one would be tying your health coverage to your job, so that in changing jobs you run the risk of losing your coverage. That just never happens in a UHC system. Number two would be the profit-motive incentives to deny or restrict care. I’ve never once had, or even heard of, a problem with any health care being denied here in Canada because someone went to the wrong doctor, or the wrong hospital, but such stories are apparently commonplace in the US. This is another thing that basically would never happen with UHC.
So even if the costs were exactly the same overall, you’d get better service, for more people, with less stress. That’s a huge win.