I tend to question that--I don't see how long wait times for serious conditions leads to better health outcomes. It would logically seem like it would lead to more and earlier deaths if truly spending less per patient. I suspect there are statistical shenanigans.
You seem to be more confident in universal healthcare having "long wait times for serious conditions" than in universal healthcare resulting in better health outcomes at a lower cost per citizen. What makes you trust the first premise more than the second one?
as we delve further into the mass media spectacle one thing has become clear as everything else has become very muddy: the truth isn't what the facts support, it's what you hear three times from people you consider your peers. the fact is that the data that show increased wait times are for elective surgery (https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/health-insurance/feature...) which (by nature of being elective) doesn't correspond to increased mortality or cost, but the wait times on emergency care are comparable for single payer and individual payer systems are comparable, with the US doing slightly better in waits for people who actually receive care but, again, no indication of how many people avoid care due to the cost.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health...
The data are there. If there's a problem with the data, it's not enough for you to simply suspect it. You kinda have to determine what the problem is and show it to us. After all, no one waits longer for healthcare than someone who never gets it because they can't afford it.