A big democratic talking point lately have been switching to a more universal health care system, which republicans obviously are opposed to due to the increased cost.
However, It's well known that the USA health care system is extremely inefficient. I've seen numerous statistics and studies which show the average cost per individual in the US health care system is drastically higher then many other first world countries.
There are many factors to this, but one of the supposed top costs is administrative costs due to the non-standardized insurances requiring significant overhead to determine what insurance will cover and properly file for it.
A second quoted cost for why government healthcare is so inefficient is the failure to provide a means to negotiate with drug providers to lower medication costs, causing medication to be extremely expensive.
I'm wondering if anyone can point me to any serious studies/analysis of potential cost savings that could come from a single universal (or near-universal) healthcare system's ability to lower these, and similar, costs by standardizing how healthcare is applied, and compared this to the increased cost of covering everyone with a single healthcare system?
I'm looking for detailed analysis if possible, not just speculation. I'm only interested in the cost/savings of such a theoretical system. I'm well ware that there are other arguments both for and against universal health care, but I don't want to get into them with this question. I'm only looking at financial expense to the us government in running such a theoretical system and nothing else.