Socialism is an insidious thing, and you need to keep your eyes on the details. In many (perhaps most) states, the state government controls how many hospitals are allowed to exist. Hospitals need a state license to operate legally, and some states have elaborate schemes to limit the number of hospitals and hospital beds in a given area. The deciding factors are all about expense to the state, since the state funds a huge percentage of medical care, and not about what the taxpaying patients want.
This policy has been used against completely private medical practices which want to open small outpatient surgery centers to provide a narrow range of procedures in the doctors' area of expertise. If the procedures they proposed to do required a hospital license, the state can (and sometimes does) just say no. So the answer is that taxpayers often ARE forced to use whatever hospital the state has allowed to operate in their area, or undertake severe inconvenience and/or extra expense (i.e. using a hospital that is 100 miles away and inaccessible by public transportation, making it difficult or impossible for relatives to visit.
Every medical provider must provide every imaginable medical service?
Obviously I'm not suggesting that small hospitals with limited specialized staff, be required to do stuff like heart transplants. However, there is no hospital that has any ob-gyn department, where doctors aren't qualified to do early abortions and tie tubes. Another problem is that these hospitals often don't advertise their religious affiliation or notify patients in advance of basic procedures that the hospital will refuse to perform.
An example is the story told to me by an electrician who was doing some work on my house (entirely on weekends, since he needed the overtime to make ends meet). He and his wife married young, and figured on having 2-3 children. The first two were boys, so when the wife was asked at the hospital after the birth of the second one, whether she wanted her tubes ties, she said no because she and her husband had decided to have one more, as they hoped for a girl. About two years later, she went to the same hospital to deliver baby #3 (a girl), and planned to have her tubes ties while there. So after she arrived at the hospital, already in labor, she told the doctor or nurse that this time she did want her tubes ties. Surprise! "We won't do it, because the hospital was bought by a Catholic hospital operator last year." No change in the name of the hospital, no warning to patients. As a young family strapped for cash, they couldn't come up with the cash right away to have either of themselves sterilized somewhere else (much more expensive to tie tubes in a separate hospital stay, than in connection with a delivery). They resolved to save up and he would have a vasectomy. Unfortunately, she got pregnant again in the meantime, and they weren't comfortable with abortion. So now this young couple has an additional child they didn't want, and daddy is wokring long hours and spending little time with the kids, in order to make ends meet.
Sorry, but it is NOT okay for religious hospitals to be pulling that kind of stunt while operating primarily on public funding.
I live in a relatively small community now down to one hospital. It's completely secular. No religious affiliation. They don't do any abortions. What does one make of that? It ain't religion yet they are theoretically "forcing" something or other on the powerless taxpayers. But what?
It's about an hour and a half's drive to the big, big city. You want it enough, you go get it.
Sorry, but it is NOT okay for religious hospitals to be pulling that kind of stunt while operating primarily on public funding.
You're letting the young couple off the hook for their own responsibility.
It wasn't a secret that the hospital changed hands and policy was going to change. Think there was a big stink about that in the news? Of course there was, there always is. Admittedly, a busy young couple might not pay attention to the news. But it was no secret. And it was 'their' hospital.
They knew they wanted tubal ligation. During the course of their pre-natal care this topic had to be raised with their doctor. They were experienced in the ways of doctors, hospitals and pregnancies by that point in time. They weren't innocent babes in the woods going through everything for the very first time.
They 'unfortunately' happened to become pregnant? Well, dang. I'm pretty sure the hospital changing policies and government social policy was not a consideration in that event.
My only point being, in addition to institutions, 'we the people' are part of the equation of responsibility. We can't just say 'they' did it to us. That's the victim mentality. If somebody really, really wants "reproductive health care services" they can get them. Maybe not as conveniently as they would like, but they can get them.
Jumping back to your original thought about the Church's financial disaster, part of the problem was the laity shirking their duty to be vigilant. Decades of trusting every priest to be a saint, when the honest ones tell you all the time they are sinners like everyone else, turned into an absolute moral and financial catastrophe. The priests and bishops were primarily responsible but the laity also had a part to play.
The responsibility thing holds true for the medical consumer as well as the Church layman. All that sexual activity entails tremendous personal responsibility.