First, costs per capita and percentage of GDP tells you nothing about the quality of care.
Second, Holland's GDP is that high because we are a trade port for the EU and we have a huge natural gas reserve, so that figure is misleading.
Third, costs per capita is low, because all costs in Holland are a lot less. Wages are a whole lot less then in the US. A more accurate indicator would be what percentage of income the healthcare costs and what quality of care is delivered.
So I reject the graph as proof that Holland has cheaper healthcare then the US.
What I do agree on is that healthcare is cheaper in Holland then in the US. Because in the US the risk of being sued for malpractice is so high, that insurance premiums for physicians is ultra high. That, coupled with that if you have a sprained ankle you get sent in for an MRI and all sorts of test, is what driving the costs in the US up. So the low cost is not in anyway a feat the government can take credit for.
In Holland you cannot sue the physician for malpractice. Even if he chops of the wrong leg, he will never ever admit it. You have to fight government institutions for years to even get recognition that the wrong leg has been chopped off. Then you have to fight the system for years more to get compensation. Meanwhile the physician can continue to chop off wrong legs for many years. The system lacks an incentive for correction. That incentive can only come from a free market.
Government insurance is not going to bring down costs. It's just going to create a politicized healthcare system, where business decisions are made on what 'feels' right instead of what is right. In the end driving the costs up. How to bring costs down in the US? I have no alternative as of yet.