Now that $200 million has to cover 300 million U.S. citizens. That's $0.02 a person. To get that same $40,000 per person coverage you would have need to generate 12 trillion dollars in revenue, or about $120,000 per tax payer in revenue.
Ok, where the hell did you learn math? $200 million divided by 300 million people = $0.66 per person, not $0.02. (I have no idea where you came up with this number).
For $40,000 in health care for every person, every person would have to pay.... $40,000. Now I understand that you're assuming 100 million rather than 300 million to take into account children, unemployed... probably something else to account for the fact that you assume only 1 in 3 living people in the US pays taxes (which is a really low estimate I might add). So yes, for 100 million people to supply $40,000 in benifits to 300 million people, which assumes that all people, including children, will need a full $40,000 worth of care every year, it would in fact cost those 100 million $120,000 per year. Simple math there, but I think your base assumptions are really flawed.
Why would everyone require $40,000 in care every year? Shit I might get a cold or the flu once or twice a year and have to buy $50 in over the counter. My fiance has type 1 diabetes and spends around $100 a month with insurance for her insulin, which is around $600 a month without. So even without insurance someone with a medical condition that requires constant medicine (which is not most people) would only cost $7,200 a year, leaving $32,800 free of that $40k allowance. I just don't see the average cost of health-care per person per year as being so high, which makes me believe your argument, besides being mathematically challenged, is also a straw man set up to prove your point without any basis of fact.