The comparison of state rationing boards in socialized systems with the policies of insurance companies in the US is about as specious as it gets, and is intended to mislead the uninformed in this country as to the consequences of implementing one of those systems here.
An insurance policy is simply a business deal - you can look at the formulary going in, and if you don't like the deal, don't take it. Also you can't expect insurance companies to operate at a loss - they aren't charities. But insurance companies' policies are LIGHT YEARS from the nature of socialized systems.
If I need a med and it isn't covered, I can try to find a way to come up with the money. In Canada, trying to get health care outside the state rationing system is >>ILLEGAL<<. The authorities there of course know that when it's life or death, canadians will head south of the border, rather than die on a long canadian waiting list. In other words, their system is designed to survive by parasitism off the US system. Another example: in the UK's NHS, the number of serious medical procedures of a given type that can be offered by a particular service provider, say a hospital, has a strict low limit each year. That means the hospital next door to you could be completely able to save your life, but it's illegal for them to do anything and you will die (unless you become a medical tourist like tens of thousands of Britons every year, who go to places like India to try to save their lives.) There isn't ANYTHING like that in the US.