A cancer patient was faced with a teribble, bureaucratic situation..
Since the government is involved in her healthcare, the knee-jerk reaction was that the involvemnt was the cause. First of all, that two factors occur together does not mean that one caused the other. That's basic logic as well as basic science.

Then, let's look at the no-government private sector alternative. Every insurance company has its own bureucracy, its own guidelines, and its own stupid staff.

The important question is: what are this woman's options now? She can speak to management at the insurance office, but she can also call her represemtatives in State govenrment. Now that the story is out, she can probably get the ear of the governor. The government created this situationa and she can hold the government accountable.
What would be her options if this were a private insurer? She could argue with the company or get a lawyer. To spend her last days in court at considerable expense can't be a happy prospect.

For every story about a bad experience with government, I have two about a bad experience with private companies.
Any system involving lots of people, both as consumers and as providers, is going to have serious bureucratic and policy problems, There is no magic bullet to avoid that. With government involvemsnt, at least you know who to blame and of whom you can demand rectification. and reform.

That removing government will remove all problems, glitches and bad outcomws is becoming like a religious belief, to which people can cling like children cling to a Santa Claus myth. In real life, you have to look for the best among the imperfect and strive to have mechanisms for improvemtn.