> So then what are the friction points of the Singaporean healthcare model that prevents other countries from adopting it?

The friction points aren't necessarily with the model itself, the friction is strictly political will. Democracy doesn't always seek out the most objectively superior solution, it simply seeks out the solution that the people want. Strict gun control might be a "superior policy", but that doesn't mean that people in America want that. Similarly, people in Denmark don't really want to change their system, even if there exists a superior system in Singapore.

In contrast, the US is in a unique position in that there is growing political will to change the status quo system, and the Singapore model happens to be one of the few that enjoys bipartisan approval. Also uniquely, the fully socialized single-payer system couldn't even get majority support among the Democratic Party. Indeed, the current nominee was the guy who explicitly campaigned on "the public option" rather than a strictly socialized system.

> If it were a Bill up for a vote by politicians in the US then what issues would they have with it?

The GOP's proposed Fair Care Act[1] happens to make one key change that moves the US closer to parity with Singapore: namely easing the rule that requires one to enroll in a high-deductible plan in order to qualify for an HSA — so that even those on low deductible plans may take advantage of the HSA. The American HSA is similar to the Singaporean Medisave system, which is a pre-tax savings account for healthcare spending only, where the savings are invested in funds. With American HSA's, they are private custodial mutual funds. With Singapore's Medisave, the fund is the Singapore sovereign wealth fund.

The Fair Care Act may get buy-in from the Left if it includes universal catastrophic coverage (analogous to Singapore's Medishield), and also making HSA contributions compulsory, just like Singapore.

Indiana's government offers its employees what is widely considered to be superior health insurance[2], in which the state deposits funds into HSA's equal to the annual deductible. This is very similar to Singapore's Medisave + Medishield system.

Another proposal that enjoys generally bipartisan approval: Medicare Advantage For All. Medicare Part C, or Medicare Advantage, is the part of America's Medicare system that is working best. Medicare Advantage plans have lower costs, broader benefits, and better health outcomes than traditional, single-payer Medicare. Today, almost 40% of Medicare enrollees are in a Medicare Advantage plan, as opposed to traditional "single-payer" Medicare[3].

So the political will is there, and the empirical results are proven by one of the US's very own states (run by the GOP, no less).

> Also comparing healthcare costs of Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland with the UK from the links I posted earlier clearly shows that socialised healthcare is more efficient.

> The per capita cost in Germany ia 32% higher than the UK, Netherlands it is 28% higher, and in Switzerland it is a whopping 88% higher compared to the UK.\

> Even France and Greece which are more socialist than the UK and both also have national insurance schemes are much better value than their private counterparts.

"Cheaper" != "More efficient". While you're right that the nations that provide "socialized healthcare" can have lower costs per capita — Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Singapore all enjoy higher average life expectancies than Denmark, UK, and Greece. Switzerland & Singapore both enjoy higher average life expectancies than Denmark, UK, Greece, and also France. The goal of these systems is to get the most bang for our buck, not strictly to just spend the least.

This is why Singapore's system shines — it enjoys the lowest per capita spending while enjoying the best health outcomes.

I'll close by saying that Singapore tried the UK's system[4] (listen at 12:35). The US also has a UK-like single-provider healthcare system, the VA — and that's been an abject failure[5]. The fact that this failure was reproduced twice, independently, suggests that UK's success might be the "outlier" (to use your framing). In contrast, we are yet to see a failed attempt at replicating Singapore's system, and thus cannot yet conclude that it is some sort of an anomaly.

[1] https://www.niskanencenter.org/can-the-fair-care-act-deliver...

[2] https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/466289-why-isnt-mayor...

[3] https://freopp.org/medicare-advantage-a-platform-for-afforda...

[4] https://soundcloud.com/reuters/the-exchange-too-small-to-fai...

[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/28/va-veterans-affairs-history-...