I especially love that this was done with private fundraising over government funding. Philanthropy can be effective, often far more so than governments!
All in all, in order to effectively analyze these occurrences (particularly in admissions), one must ask: how will the institution benefit? They wouldn't pass these changes otherwise.
Bingo. Also, even if we somehow forced all doctors to work for free and magically ended up with the same quality of care, we'd still only reduce total spending by about 7%.
That's a hard upper bound on the effects that increasing the supply of physicians can have.
No, but it might mean more doctors in the kind of practices and specialties that are socially useful but not serving the wealthiest of private pay clients, because the necessity of chasing the maximum returns is reduced.
As an European I always find the dichotomy "government vs people" strange. If the state pays for something, it's solidarity, not communism.
Germany isn't a good example. Germany stands because it can exploit its weaker neighbors, the east block out of their resources and force the companies to book profit and get taxed in Germany.
Germans see each others as bothers. Show me a few German companies where a foreigner is in the executive role?
The whole point of Germany is Germans first. Ofcourse, they can make education free in this setting.