Isn't he kinda just describing the point of healthcare?

Like we literally cannot afford to use the most extensive options for everyone, so we provide the options that could help you within affordable limits at a cheap price or free to those that couldn't afford otherwise?

It's like, we have 10 out of 100 people that can't afford food. With what Tate is describing, we could provide 1 of those 10 people a full meal with everything you could want and run out of money, we could provide nothing at all, or we could provide all 10 people with bread and butter. In the final option all 10 are okay in the end, otherwise you have 9 starving and one very well.

Or does he think it's at all manageable to do this specific time consuming testing for everyone and have it affordable? That would take a shitload of taxes, I don't think most people anywhere would be in favor of going that extreme