Also, in nearly every parliamentary system the state's ability to quickly invalidate patents by an act of parliament gives them even more leverage in the negotiations with drug companies.
You're already paying for health care coverage via monthly/annual premiums and via reduced salaries where your employer's portion is part of the 'total compensation' you get (but doesn't show up in your pay check).
Even if the amount at the end stays exactly the same it may be an improvement because (a) there are no "in network" worries about going to the "wrong" hospital or getting the "wrong" doctor", and (b) it is universal coverage so (i) you may not have to worry about losing your job and losing coverage as well as (ii) you can change jobs and have the same (universal) coverage.
It'd be a deal even if it costs exactly the same.
"Critics of drug price regulation argue that free market pricing strategies and higher prices in the United States are instrumental to innovation. One might therefore expect the United States to be the most innovative given that it is the only country with a predominantly unregulated pharmaceutical market. However, US pharmaceutical innovation appeared to be roughly proportional to its national wealth and prescription drug spending. Our data suggest that the United States is important but not disproportionate in its contribution to pharmaceutical innovation. Interestingly, some countries with direct price control, profit control, or reference drug pricing appeared to innovate proportionally more than their contribution to the global GDP or prescription drug spending."
I’m not sure why people keep bringing up Europe - the USA is not Europe. For one doctors are paid more in the USA compared to Europe, medicine is more expensive here, more of the R and D originates here, etc