This is Joseph
I was reading a fact checking article, and I encountered a very important set of cost estimates that bear repeating. The OECD estimates health care costs. It's not surprising that total US health care costs are very high. What I found more useful to think about was the amounts that the United States ($4,197), the United Kingdom ($2,802), and France ($3,247) spent in terms of public support for health care. Yes, the US already leads in government provided health care costs (as well as being more than double total costs for either of these countries).
Now I know that this example doesn't give many clues as to how to fix these high costs. However, it does really start to make the question of whether market forces are really reducing costs in the health care sector seem critical.
I should also point out, that the UK has a very lean system and people may legitimately question if it is too lean for emulation on this side of the pond. It works, but it makes some painful choices, However, French health care (almost exactly half in total cost what the US pays) has a very good reputation (even among Libertarians) and may be a place where we can learn a lot about how to decrease total heath care expenses while keeping up the higher level of service that is a clear revealed preference in the United States.
The last piece here is the cost of innovation. It's a complex topic, but it is clear that some cases of increased costs for medical services, like drugs, are not entirely about innovation but may involve some elements of profit-taking as well. Insofar as there are innovations that won't exist if Americans do not subsidize them (thus making life better for everyone), it is worth asking if a) this is really the best way to generate these innovations and b) if there is not a way we couldn't average the costs out among other advanced nations based on treaties (it's got to be worth a try, right?).