Your analysis is superficial and misses the point. And your assertion that somehow Americans “deserve” better smacks of pandering rather than serious thinking.

Many Americans want to be able to have a visit of a certain length of time with their doctor. They just don’t want to pay what that has come to cost.

The service isn’t merely an “appointment” with prescriptions or a scheduled surgery. You fail to see the conflict between expectations of time–in this case for a non-homogeneous “product”–a physician’s consultation, an expected level of quality–time with someone who is trained and uses that training– and the desire to meet a specific price.

Like the engineer’s triad, (good, cheap, fast, pick any two) there will always be a difficulty with accommodating all of those requirements. Pretending that there is some answer to be had in the inevitable march of economic forces that will leave the resistant doctors in the dust is just ignoring the reality that expectations of patients will have to bend as well. Maybe that means you will have to expect less time with a well-trained doctor. There are inherent limits to where this can go. Maybe you will have to be satisfied with less well trained providers, “mid-levels” rather than physicians whose training isn’t as exhaustive but whose time isn’t as costly. Maybe you will just have to pay more for qualified professional time.

Simply saying Americans demand something is really irrelevant. Demand has to be backed by resources (and that isn’t the same as “insurance” resources). I might want a great house and lot for $50,000 and a great new car for $5,000. I can trumpet my indignation and demands all day long, and it isn’t going to matter. No one has to give me what I demand at my price.

And your calling medical practice a “monopoly” is really off the mark, unless you pine for the days when any huckster and sociopath could tout cures with impunity. The restrictions on who can practice have been imposed on the many professions–not a monopoly– and the many competing individuals in each of those professions, again not an monopoly. I don’t see those requirements being lifted, and in fact the requirements grow greater as time goes by. I figure that is the will of the lay public speaking, because it sure isn’t me. Compliance costs me money. If you aren’t one of the many who support the public will that only the qualified should practice, well I hope you can be content being on the outside of the majority’s opinion. I don’t see things changing your way ever.

Do you even understand what a market is? Are you able to understand what the conditions of a non-market are? Demands don’t always have their natural resolution in their being met with satisfaction.