Sources of funding are irrelevant if you are just auditing expenditures, and that is a standard part of national accounts reporting.
https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/health-spending.html
” All socialist nations use hidden taxes to conceal how much they screw over their citizenry.”
This is an assertion without evidence. Indeed, the US is a specialist in this because it has tended to hide taxation as “unfunded mandates” - look it up. There are economic arguments on all this going back a half-century.
Sources of funding are not irrelevant, if you’re going to make a claim that Americans pay more than Europeans. I don’t question that the spending is more user direct, but hidden taxes that go towards healthcare are still costs to the taxpayer.
If you’re going to make a claim that AMericans pay more, you have to show that Americans pay more overall, as opposed to having it come out of pocket more directly. Paying a lifetime of taxes for healthcare does not make it cheaper than when you pay directly out of pocket.
It also doesn’t justify, ever, removing the future from the children for present benefit. That $200,000, if invested instead, would have been worth approximately $700,000 today and generated an income of about $30,000/year. That’s a direct cost to me, paying for the healthcare of others cost me my future with no benefit to me.