Additionally, the Netherlands has a significantly more homogeneous population than the U. S...

That would certainly be the lingering perception. Ethnically NL is slightly more white than the US (~85% as opposed to ~82%). Religiously NL is a bit less homogenous (RC 31 vs 24, Prot 20 vs 54, Jew 0.2 vs 1, Mus 5.5 vs 1, Other 2.5 vs 10, and None 41 vs 10). The Netherlands appears a bit more culturally homogenous than the US, but that is largely due to size and a more homogeneous climate.

...That affects willingness to pay which in turn influences political support.

The willingness to pay and political support being considerably higher in NL is much more about socialism not being the bogeyman in the NL that it has been in the US. Call universal health care socialized medicine in the US and watch the politicians seek cover. Do the same in NL and watch no one care.

...the number of physicians per 100,000 in the Netherlands is 328; the number of physicians per 100,000 in the U. S. is 264.

This is a more significant problem but not one that cannot be overcome.
BTW isn't it usually the contention of those who oppose universal health care that socialized medicine will automatically reduce the number of doctors? My quick scan of the WHO record indicates that the US (2.56) has less doctors per 1000 pop than every Western industrialized nation other than the UK (2.30), Canada (2.14), Australia (2.47), and New Zealand(2.37). Japan (1.98) and Poland (2.47) also have less. Canada and the UK alleviate this somewhat by having slightly more nurses to make up for having slightly less doctors. This seems to put the lie to the contention of many (not necessarily Dave here) that universal health care will mean less doctors.

There's a physician shortage everywhere. This is a basic problem. There need to be fundamental changes in how medical care is delivered and IMO no other reforms can succeed without dealing with that problem.

I have lived several places in and out of the US and have never had to wait more than a day or two for an appointment, have generally been able to get same day walk in service from a GP, and have never been sent to an emergency room for non-emergency service.
There is certainly a physician shortage in some places, particularly in rural and poor areas. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't think that all other health care problems should be held hostage to this one.

Medicare Part D has been extremely disruptive and difficult.

This fiasco has certainly made things both more difficult and more necessary.

Re: certifying doctors and med schools
This should be done by the government rather than by the AMA. This would open the door to more med schools and more physicians. The AMA guidelines could be used as starting point to craft certification standards.

I haven’t heard what the punishment would be for not having health insurance beside the possibilitie of not being able to get a job. Isn’t it hard to pay for health insurance if you can’t get a job?

Curretly Clinton's plan would have no punishment mechanism for failure to comply.

When the market reacts by increasing the supply of PCP's and lowering the supply of emergency room doctors forced to act as PCP's, we'd enjoy lower costs, would we not?

No. The supply of healthcare in the U. S. is controlled by a cartel and the cartel believes that its interests reside in restraining the supply.

I've not been told to wait a couple of weeks for a PCP, ever, and I've had plenty of good and bad insurance over the last ten years. Maybe you need a new practice.

I'm currently on my third in eight years. They're all the same hereabouts in that respect.

From a purely theoretical standpoint no benefits package should cover child birth. Child birth is a completely voluntary procedure and as such should be paid by the patient and not by an insurance company.

That's a sure fire way to eliminate the financially sensible subculture in only a few generations. When only the financially reckless are having children, where will that leave us in 50 years?

This highlights a fundamental bad assumption in all universal coverage proposals: that primary care providers have excess capacity. They don't and whatever cost savings can be achieved as a consequence of universal coverage will be more than offset by the cost increases due to supply and demand.

When the market reacts by increasing the supply of PCP's and lowering the supply of emergency room doctors forced to act as PCP's, we'd enjoy lower costs, would we not?

I've not been told to wait a couple of weeks for a PCP, ever, and I've had plenty of good and bad insurance over the last ten years. Maybe you need a new practice.

Currently the uninsured get their health care via the emergency room.

It's not just the uninsured, Steve. We have premium health insurance. At least here in Chicago physicians don't distinguish among different insurers in determining how to allocate service. If you have a problem that won't wait until your primary care physician has time for you, typically several weeks or longer, it's standard practice for your PCP to tell you to go to the emergency room.

This highlights a fundamental bad assumption in all universal coverage proposals: that primary care providers have excess capacity. They don't and whatever cost savings can be achieved as a consequence of universal coverage will be more than offset by the cost increases due to supply and demand.

Grewgills, solutions in the Netherlands are not portable to the United States. It's not just a matter of scaling. For example, the number of physicians per 100,000 in the Netherlands is 328; the number of physicians per 100,000 in the U. S. is 264. That's a significant difference which will be aggravated by universal coverage. Additionally, the Netherlands has a significantly more homogeneous population than the U. S. That affects willingness to pay which in turn influences political support.

There's a physician shortage everywhere. This is a basic problem. There need to be fundamental changes in how medical care is delivered and IMO no other reforms can succeed without dealing with that problem.

The experience in the U. S. has been that reform in the healthcare system is so politically painful that we're only willing to consider a major reform every 15 years or so. Medicare Part D has been extremely disruptive and difficult.

We have fiscal problems related to financing healthcare that won't wait another 15 years. That's why, for me, any reform that doesn't deal with the supply of healthcare and its distribution, however good it may otherwise be, is a non-starter.

Reform is definitely in our future and it will not under any circumstances be the abolition of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. That battle is already lost (or won, depending on your point of view) and it's actively counter-productive to attempt to re-fight it.