The author stumbled over one of the most important pieces of data - GP's per 100,000 people. The author notes we have the lowest doctor:population ratio, adding:
"And that’s after spending way, way, way more money than anyone else"
The problem is that we don't let the market decide on the right number of doctors - the training of new doctors is a function of the number of residencies, which is jointly controlled by congress and current physicians.
So we artificially restrict the supply of doctors, which inflates (and I would argue is intended to inflate) the salaries of all doctors, while also shifting the market equilibrium to a lower quantity of medical services provided [1].
We also enforce MDs being the gatekeeper to various medical stuff. Many things we insist must be done by a doctor could be done without that degree. There are certainly a lot of things that someone with the knowledge of a LPN or Army medic could do just fine (say, checking for a broken bone).
And our obsession with (the war on) drugs makes MDs the gatekeeper to pharmaceuticals. Really, there's no reason why most drugs can't be widely available. I understand the logic behind some (like the overuse of antibiotics breeding resistant bacteria like MRSA), but MDs are doing a bad job of preventing that, and in any case, those could be the exception rather than the norm. There's really no reason I shouldn't be able to go to the store and pick up, say, my Asacol on my own initiative.
So the low population of MDs is one aspect, but the overloading of MDs with responsibilities for which their skills aren't needed is another.
Doctors being the gatekeepers to pharmaceuticals also means that when you seek care for an ailment or symptoms favored by pill tourists, the doctor will make a snap judgment based on your appearance and demeanor and possibly decide not to give you appropriate care. You might just be sent home with a follow-up appointment, or if you're in the emergency room, you might be left on a gurney in a hallway for hours while the nurses ignore you.
I agree whole-heatedly with your comment on the "gatekeeper" mentality of the medical industry. Armed with a current copy of "The Merck Manual," some internet research, and local feed store antibiotics, I've successfully self-treated for a few infections.
I can only imagine that retired nurses, field medics, and EMTs (you know, people with real training in this stuff) all being able to legally administer rudimentary healthcare to their local communities would provide much-needed care for a great many cases, thereby increasing the quality of life for many more people.
That it's general practitioners is the key data point there - it's not talking about physicians in general. We have a far greater ratio of specialty doctors to general practitioners than other countries do.
I don't have the stats handy, but from what I've read I'd be surprised if we didn't have more doctors per 100,000 people than the average country.
As another commenter mentioned, it's general practitioners that's limited. According to salary.com, in Austin, "general practitioner" and "family practice" make $58k, "family practice physician" makes $73k. I'll assume the salary is about $75k. Compare "surgeon" at $101k, "heart surgeon" at $114k, and "orthopedic surgeon" at $165k. After going $200k in debt for medical school, I'm thinking family practice isn't looking very financially rewarding. (For comparison, $75k - $100k should be easy for an experienced programmer in Austin, and it doesn't take $200k in debt, either)
The economics definitely penalizes family practice.
So we artificially restrict the supply of doctors, which inflates (and I would argue is intended to inflate) the salaries of all doctors, while also shifting the market equilibrium to a lower quantity of medical services provided [1].
[1] here's a graphical example for people new to economics: http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/courses/econ2020/section6/...