So your logic seems to be based on three premises:
1. Because people need medical care, government should control it.
2. Because medical care is currently highly regulated by government here, it must be.
3. There is no possibility of freeing up the health care market.
Those are all dangerous assumptions, which ultimately support complete government control over the economy, and the loss of individual freedom, if applied industry by industry (as the power-hungry have always tried to do).
You seem wedded to the idea that medical care is inherently unique somehow, but can identify no logical reason for this.
Everyone needs it, is not unique to medical care.
Government regulation is not inherently unique, it is just the temporary, current state of affairs. It could happen to other industries, it was not always the case for medical care here, and is not inherently the case with medical care in other countries.
There is nothing inherently unique in the health care industry to require government control, except that you are already accustomed to having a heavy government role in it.
Surrendering any industry to permanent state control, once they have succeeded in an encroachment, and denying the possibility of any roll back, will inevitably lead to complete loss of freedom, and dependency on whoever can gain control of the levers of government - because there will always be a profit motive for individuals in government to try to extend their control.
I am saying medical care is already greatly controlled by government.
As such, the government is obliged to make sure everyone has access to it.
If the government was to get out of controlling healthcare and let the market go to work, then they would have no obligation to control access.
But the government is not ready to get out of controlling healthcare.
So the government, as long as they are greatly controlling who can provide healthcare, is obliged to make sure everyone has access to the same thing.