> The so-called social healthcare as pushed by the government will inherently waste a lot of money because government is always wasteful with it's resources.

This just isn't the case. Healthcare/health insurance, for a number of reasons, is one place where government-provided solutions have traditionally been less wasteful than private market solutions.

One reason is that single-payer systems are monopsonies: The single payer (which need not be the government, and in some countries actually isn't the government) has much greater bargaining power than any individual or company and can negotiate better prices.

Second, the big cost drivers for health insurances are things that happen either way; the 80/20 rule applies, and most actual costs are caused by chronic illnesses, surgery, etc. These costs will occur either way and will have to be paid for. They will eventually come out of your paycheck (or somebody's paycheck), no matter who's being charged and how. There's no taxing people more or less, because most of the costs are fixed. Single-payer systems allow us to structure payment for these costs to minimize inefficiencies, medical debts, etc.; universal healthcare furthermore reduces the risk of treatment for acute conditions being delayed, which drives costs up further.

Third, healthcare/health insurance markets are less efficient than other markets. One reason is that people do not have a desire to shop around when getting sick; evaluating healthcare options takes time, and that's the last thing you have when you need treatment. Another reason is that healthcare and health insurance is simply too complex and time-consuming for patients to fully understand and to appreciate, especially with the arcane complexity of health plans as they tend to develop in a free market. Finally, insurers in a free market will do their darnedest to insure healthy people and avoid insuring sick people. All of this breaks the normal demand and supply constraints in a fairly fundamental fashion.

Health insurance in the Netherlands may be becoming more expensive, but that's because health insurance is becoming more expensive everywhere as a consequence of population aging and advanced treatment options. In the end, your per capita health care expenditures are still 2/3 of that of the United States. Under the US system, you could expect to pay a couple thousand Euro more annually.

"Another reason is that healthcare and health insurance is simply too complex and time-consuming for patients to fully understand and to appreciate, especially with the arcane complexity of health plans as they tend to develop in a free market. "

Yet another reason: it's not like most simple commerce transactions with 'satisfaction guaranteed or your money back". If I choose option A over option B when looking at medical procedures, I may live or die. No going back for a refund. Or I may be permanently scarred, brain-damaged, or otherwise harmed for the rest of my life. Or... I might be cured. There's very little ability to 'shop around' and 'compare' options when talking about life-critical situations.

It's somewhat similar to housing, in that most people only buy a few houses (at most) over several decades - trying to shop around and compare options only goes so far - once you've made a decision, there's rarely ever a quick 'undo and start over' option.

The real issue is that uninsured people are an externality to society.

If we actually let people choose to not buy insurance and deal with those consequences, that would be fine. But as a civilized society, we don't find it acceptable to let people die for preventable reasons, so society ends up footing the bill for that person.

Either we need to let those who can afford it and choose not to purchase insurance die of pneumonia if they can't afford the treatment, or everyone needs to buy health insurance if they expect to be treated for life-threatening conditions.

It's not a matter of "spend your money how you see fit". It's "you choose not to buy health insurance and we pay for it anyway", which is patently unfair on the rest of us.

> The so-called social healthcare as pushed by the government will inherently waste a lot of money because government is always wasteful with it's resources. Governments are wasteful because whenever they run out of money they have the option to tax people more. On the other hand companies that waste a lot of money will eventually be removed from the marketplace, as they are unhealthy.

Which large companies that sell health insurance have gone bankrupt due to being wasteful with money?

The incentive to "not waste money" in the health insurance industry is "deny coverage when possible". Is that really the best way to provide healthcare for all Americans? Presumably that's the real goal that we all share, and we're just arguing about the best way to do it.

If government-provided health insurance is too wasteful, why does the American federal government spend more money on healthcare than most other countries (not even counting the American private healthcare expenses), with worse outcomes?

> Which large companies that sell health insurance have gone bankrupt due to being wasteful with money?

Was not necessarily talking about companies in a specific market. But plenty companies have gone bankrupt through bad financial management. I think in the Netherlands some insurance companies might have gone bankrupt if our government allowed them to (because many insurance companies in the Netherlands are linked with banking companies). But instead our government thought it wiser to spend taxpayers money to keep these companies alive.

> The incentive to "not waste money" in the health insurance industry is "deny coverage when possible". Is that really the best way to provide healthcare for all Americans? Presumably that's the real goal that we all share, and we're just arguing about the best way to do it.

I think this is a prime example where government legislation should provide consumer security that insurance companies keep to their end of the contract.

> If government-provided health insurance is too wasteful, why does the American federal government spend more money on healthcare than most other countries (not even counting the American private healthcare expenses), with worse outcomes?

Of course the cause might be in many areas, I'm not sure the US example compared to many other countries is proof that government supplied social healthcare is always cheaper.

Then again, even F.A. Hayek argues in his book "The Road to Serfdom" that perhaps in very few situations government supplied services might be worth the loss in freedom [1]. Perhaps healthcare could be one of these services.

[1]: "In instances like these it is at least possible that we might all be better off, and should prefer the new situation if we had the choice-but that no individual ever gets the choice, because the alternative is that either we should all use the same cheap car (or all should use only electricity), or that we should have the choice between these things with each of them at a much higher price. I do not know whether this is true in either of the instances given. But it must be admitted that it is possible that by compulsory standardisation or the prohibition of variety beyond a certain degree, abundance might be increased in some fields more than sufficiently to compensate for the restriction of the choice of the consumer."

When an insurance company goes banktrupt, the owners don't suffer. The customers suffer.

"When an insurance company goes banktrupt, the owners don't suffer. The customers suffer."

Not necessarily. Often another company will gladly buy the bankrupt company in order to take over the accounts. Also, for many types of insurance it's not that big a deal, customers might switch to another company and from the first payment they'd be able to make use of the new insurance policy.