In the context of Sweden though, with social health care, and a modest military your question makes more sense. And of course as long as it has govt funding it doesn't need to make a profit, or even break even.
Once you look to private capital though, investors expect that capital to generate a return.
Assuming no govt subsidy yo provide that return, it has to come from an excess after operational expenses. (aka profit)
Requiring a resource to be sold at a profit ensures it goes to where it is most needed, and that it is used efficiently.
If your little tale was true, the USA would have cheaper and better healthcare than developed countries that have free healthcare.
That is not the case. Your little tale doesn't have to always be true, there are other ways of doing things in this world.
Population health starts with urban design that forces people to walk.
Running it as a for profit business results in Worse / Worse.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...
Why does it have to be run at a profit? Surely it could be just like healthcare or the defence forces - never designed or intended to run a profit.