According to the German Wikipedia article every Dutch person is required by law to have a "legally defined" healthcare contract. Sounds quite different to the US system.
private health insurance in the US is (even under Obamacare) expensive, and the deductibles are high if you're on those cheap plans.
Under an Obamacare cheapest possible insurance option you're not going to be bankrupted by (for example) a heart attack, but you'll still be paying the bill for a long time. That ignores hospitals like SF general that charge you directly (and are out of network) so you can still be trivially bankrupted.
At face value, this is almost exactly what Obama did. It killed most of the cheap options for people who just want emergency coverage and was essentially a tax in disguise which many Americans objected to.
This is false. "Catastrophic coverage" was ended because of the sheer wealth of data that these insurance policies did not in fact provide their customers with what the customers were expecting. That is: a person with such a policy who unfortunately suffered a major accident or severe illness would find the insurance company wriggling out of any financial responsibility.
The rules were tightened up, and without any explict legal language banning them, insurance companies dropped such policies because they knew they could not satisfy the new rules requiring actual coverage.