When Florida is importing drugs from Canada instead of buying them domestically then its pretty self-evident that it can be done for cheaper.

Not sure if this is an earnest defense of the state of healthcare costs in the US but you'd have to be deluded if you think that the rampant profit-seeking in the US for healthcare is merely the cost of doing business.

Estradiol is a generic drug and generic drugs tends to be cheaper in the US than Canada[1] and the EU. The US generic drug market is incredibly competitive.

It's brand name drugs that are cheaper in other countries.

[1]https://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/events/en/R&Dpaper2...

Seems like at least two of those could be removed by universal healthcare.

I presume you're talking about pharmacy profit and insurance company profit. "universal healthcare" just means everyone's covered. It doesn't mean everything's owned & operated by the government. That means there can still be private insurance companies and pharmacies, both making a profit.

I would assume they are referring to most of the current suggestions for universal healthcare in the US, which follow a centralised model where a central body could collectively negotiate for drug prices (as the NHS does here in the UK, very effectively).

>which follow a centralised model where a central body could collectively negotiate for drug prices

That's orthogonal to universal healthcare or even a single payer system. There's nothing preventing you from having the whole country be represented collectively, but still have private insurers, like in germany. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/how-drug-prices-a...

Sure, that's true. It's not exactly uncommon to conflate a term with the most common/likely implementations known though, which is what I assumed happened here. It is true that universal healthcare could solve those problems, even if it doesn't have to.

> No need to be deliberately obtuse

It's important, because using the wrong/imprecise terminology muddles the conversation, and allowing it to go uncorrected normalizes it. When it comes to something like politics, all this will lead to is more polarization.

The biggest cost dwarfing all of these is probably the research.

But aren't these subsidized with tax payer money?

AFAIK the biggest cost is approval/clinical trials, which aren't typically taxpayer funded. The initial research is in part taxpayer funded, though.