The moral failing is on the clinics, sure, but if you want to fix the problem, you have to look at the government.
You can't write all laws like we're living in a Mad Max dystopia - some laws will need to assume that other laws are functioning correctly in order to be practically implementable as a law - just like software has dependencies that must uphold some invariants for the interface to work. The issue isn't subsidizing healthcare, it's unethical professionals abusing our trust.
Generally true, but the judgment call on "is this patient better off by being left alone" vs. "is this patient better off by having a surgery" is not easy, especially in our culture which worships heroic medicine. Patients often demand that something be done because they are primed so from the popular media they consume.
This can be even seen in the end-of-life care. Too many families demand that their dying grandma is given expensive and invasive care to live three weeks longer, even though its not just pointless, but outright cruel.
That's why it's a problem with professional ethics in healthcare first and foremost. Nobody in the bureaucratic chain is qualified to make or judge medical decisions and them trying would only be a monumental disaster because they don't even meet the patient and they're probably not medical professionals themselves. Hell, the patients and their family are rarely qualified to make the decisions - just look at what doctors chose for end of life care versus what their patients end up doing.
The system doesn't work if we don't police the professionals making the decisions at the point of care. The trick is not overdoing it like we did with opiates, scaring doctors from prescribing them even for patients genuinely in need.
it's not rocket science. Poor people don't have the money required to go to the dentist and properly take care of your teeth. Since having a healthy populace is a good thing, we say "okay, we're all going to pitch in so everyone can be as healthy as possible."
If people start to take advantage of that for personal gain (which we know there are always people who are going to do that), we need to have a plan in place for dealing with those assholes.
The presence of assholes in society shouldn't mean we don't even try to take care of each other. It should mean that we have plans for recognizing when someone is an asshole and taking measures to change that behavior.
This is going to be the problem with every system of mandatory funding. Doesn't matter if it's housing, dentistry, food stamps, etc. People were abusing the disability program, so we made a bunch of hurdles to get funding. Now there's companies who train you how to get over those hurdles: what to write on the forms, what to say to your doctor, etc. And guess what? The companies that train you what to say to get disability then get to bill the government for this new service they provided you. I'm sure it's easy to imagine their incentives.
How would ending food stamps stop you from taking care of other people?
If I'm acting on my own, my reach is very limited. By using the government, we have the potential to make a much larger impact, and in this case, create the expectation that no one should go hungry in this country. We're not there yet, mainly because there are many people around here who don't believe that expectation is valid. I'll fight them for the rest of my life.
A new "moral heroes" national holiday celebrating those who uncover fraud. More resources dedicated to investigating claims, more leeway to fine corporations for bad faith activity in order to increase the incentive to blow the whistle.