no, that's incorrect.Apologies, I got my figures slightly wrong (Did a quick google, eheh).
Regarding US spending, personally I think that might have more to do with American culture than anything. Those guys spend a fortune on cosmetic stuff, Plastic surgery is rife and they sure love to have paper-white and super-straight teeth. That's pretty damn expensive dental and cosmetic work that most people in the UK don't bother with (Because 'being a better you' is stuck up and pretentious in the British psyche, but still).
*Government* spending on healthcare in the US is actually higher than in any other developed country, before you even think about insurance or electives. Sure it's not a huge amount more but it IS more, and once you ass in insurance and private costs, the per capita average is approximately double that of any other nation. all that for healthcare which, for the vast majority of normal people, is less effective than the British NHS, Canadian healthcare etc.
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m255/NEactuary/HCspending.jpg shows it well
The reason the government ends up spending even more than an effective nationalised or semi-nationalised system to pay for substandard care for only the uninsured/elderly/veterens is largely because of the insurance gap in the US. As 20% or so of the population have no insurance at all, and a great many more have such poor insurance they cannot afford the copays for basic healthcare or are excluded from coverage for most problems, they only seek treatment in the event of catastrophic ill health. This is provided in the ER, and costs tens of times more than the preventative care or early intervention which "socialised" healthcare stresses.
In the UK, if you have an infected cut, you go to your GP, get it checked, and if it is something dangerous, you get it cleaned out and get antibiotics or whatever. this costs the individual nothing, and comes out of the tax pot. lets say the visit, procedure and check ups cost the government £200. In the US, far too many people cannot or will not PAY the £300 it would cost them for the same set of treatments (why higher? single payer efficiencies as well as the fact that hospitals bump their prices to cover the losses from emergency treatment of the unisnured) or the £50 co pay that comes with their £200 a month insurance, so they don't get the minor infection treated and hope it will just go away. 50% of the time, it does. However, the other 50% of the time, it gets worse. 3 weeks later, it has turned into a massive deep tissue infection and is causing blood poisoning and gangrene. The ER treatment to clean out the wound, remove a large chunk of flesh and several digits, pump in hardcore antibiotics, provide aftercare and recuperation is £10,000. There is no way the sick guy can pay this, so the government has to.