This is kind of flippant, but there's a real point there. If we have a medical system that requires student physicians to assume enormous student debt, then we need a system that allows physicians to retire that debt. There are multiple ways to get at that problem, though; we don't have to have a higher education system that is built on massive student debt; that's a policy choice. Like most policy choices, it's related to other policy choices - and the levels of compensation we expect to provide to physicians is related to the level of public funding we're willing to invest in training said physicians.
Personally - I would prefer that we seriously underwrite (and expand) physician training, and alleviate the student debt issue directly - and that physician compensation be allowed to decline. I've known more than a few medical students, and physicians - and it's frankly always been fairly obvious which of them were going into the field because they wanted to help people, and which of them were there because the expected to become wealthy. Not hard to differentiate. We need more of the former, and we need to be rid of the latter, IMHO.
As I understand it, most hospitals that have closed, or fallen into dire financial straits, have been hurt mostly by the cost of uncompensated (or under-compensated) Charity Care. The ACA was supposed to help address that, by expanding Medicaid, and shifting Charity Care funds to support that... but many state governments resisted Medicaid expansion, and increased their hospitals' exposure to Charity Care under-funding.
As to German41's last point - malpractice insurance is a serious cost for physicians - but I'd want to see the figures as to how much of the GDP that goes into health care actually winds up there. This is an argument that's been around for literally decades - and my instinct is that until I see data, such "forever" arguments tend to be inaccurate, to take on a life of their own. Trust, but verify?