Bern in her 'crime' did not hurt anyone, did not kill anyone, and only intimidated the possibility of force ...Only to get a professional healer to heal on their agreed upon time that they said they would wait for her to acquire the funds to save a man's life... AND simply because Bern refused to be their sex toy or maim herself or torture/kill another person ALL for their Sick pleasure... they decided to have a hit-squad of killers brutally murder her in a arena spectacle that they intended to make money off both with admission fees and side bets!
Well, we know that Bern probably wouldn't have followed through on her threat of force, or at least not to a maiming/killing degree, but realistically the law has to take threats of force very seriously (this is no comment on the specific consequences actually enforced upon Bern), or it becomes easy to just threaten people (which is very frightening and coercive, as from the victim's perspective they're in grave danger) and then just claim one wouldn't have followed through on it (even if one would have, something the victims have to consider).
Also, as I recall it she didn't threaten just to heal him on time, but to heal him for free (or perhaps (or perhaps not from the healer's legitimate perspective) she would've paid the pittance she could, but this makes little difference). It may sound nice to force free (to all but the healer) health care, but things may seem a bit different if one is the healer with theoretically limited ability to heal per day (or other period of time), and someone comes along and demands that you comply in healing someone for nothing or a pittance. Even if you had lots of healing per day the fact that it's a job implies that the overall market for healing is not unlimited or nearly unlimited. So either it's a good job (that you invested a lot of your time and/or money (even if just via opportunity cost) into, for which you could reasonably expect a good return on, lest you be swindled) and the thief is taking a lot of your money by either eating resources you needed to work that day (or other period of time) or at least by heavily diluting the market by encouraging more people to try to take your healing by force (which would result in a massive, probably catastrophic income loss if successful), or it's not a good job and you need every bit of money you can get, in which case you most especially can't afford to lose resources or lose your market by supporting the idea that healing can simply be taken if the would-be recipient just gets violent (and/or
claims to really need it and be unable to pay the market price, etc.).
Incidentally, even a generous healer probably couldn't afford to do background checks on everyone (that the customers would ultimately have to pay for, no less) to determine if they really can pay, and if so how much, especially if the healing is needed immediately or quickly (which would also tend to be when the healing was the most difficult and/or resource-/time-consuming and customer-expensive). So even if you try to enforce such generosity as a moral upon healers in general it can still be wildly impractical and ruin their ability to maintain a steady enough income, especially in relation to their investment into becoming a healer in the first place (I assume we all prefer having market-priced healers to having no healers, and the latter is a consequence of the job becoming a poor investment).
Basically, if the government won't pay for healing and the government won't protect healers from being forced to heal at below market prices, healers will find their situations highly tenuous and likely will leave for better governed lands (changing jobs is possible, but less attractive given your investing into becoming a healer, especially if you can't hide the fact that you used to be a healer well, as then people will simply hit you up for healing on your new job) or will choose to not become healers in the first place, as it would be seen as a job for suckers that don't mind being robbed. In either case healing would become rather hard to come by if you lacked the wealth to personally hire and guard a healer, for personal or "general" (very expensive) use. Obviously the government is leaving some things to be desired, but unless there's reason to believe that effectively abolishing healing would push enough relevant people over the edge to successfully and without excessive cost overthrow the government and replace it with a superior enough one (I believe it's unknown to us whether such violent revolution is truly possible, as well as whether the new government would be better or worse, and by how much) it would seem better to keep the market for healing functional.