Except the healthcare in these places isn't superior, and the data clearly shows this. It isn't even close when compared to the U.K. and Turkey.

Yes, medical innovation does account for much of the higher cost. An MIT study confirmed this. So did a study by the CATO Institute [go ahead and invoke the genetic fallacy by denying the study because it comes from a conservative organization]. Both of them same to the same conclusion, which is that without American health care innovation the socialized health care systems in other countries would be discredited. Also, this may not be the only reason the cost is higher, but I never claimed it was. In fact, I stated several times that there are ways American healthcare can be made cheaper.

so slowing down so everybody has access to those cures might be a good idea.

We're far from being where we need to be in terms of health care progress. There are still many health conditions that we haven't yet found a way to treat effectively, and in fifty years from now today's medicine is going to seem primitive in comparison. I do agree that we should take steps to lower the cost of healthcare, but this can be done in other ways without sacrificing progress.

Finally, it should be mentioned that it's ridiculous to compare the cost of healthcare in the U.S. to that in the U.K. when GDP per capita is $15,000 higher here. Realistically America is never going to achieve healthcare costs as low as they are in the U.K. We're more similar economically to countries such as Switzerland, which pays $2,000 more per capita than Britian. However, we would still be paying more than Switzerland if we want to continue funding medical progress on the same level that we are right now.