Catching up on this post from the beginning so apologies.
The Obama Administration couldn't even get a public option passed through an extremely Democratic House and Senate, so I really wouldn't expect anything close to what you're describing in the near future. And this is coming from someone who is most definitely not rooting for the Republicans.
They couldn't get a public option through because TEd Kennedy died in office and they lost their majority. Circumstance was as much an issue as the politics. Plus, the politics aren't small. An aMendment called the Stupak-Pitts amendment barred federal dollars covering abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or harm to mother. This was the same type of legislation that is currently on the books in Colorado which led pro-choice groups to vote down their ballot measure in 2016 which would have created a tax based Medicare for All in the state. yay politics.
To take a different point of view, why would any practicing physician want more physicians? That just increases the competition from a business standpoint. I haven't started medical school so I don't benefit from this at the moment, but it's just economics 101 that if the supply of doctors increased, the income of all doctors would decrease. That isn't in the self-interest of current or future doctors.
To take a different position, if you're working in the NHS you are paid a set rate to be any specific specialty. So if you're a colorectal surgeon, you get the same salary per year regardless of how many fistulotomies you do. Some would hate that. They want pay for play. Crank out 500 of those a year and buy a summer home. Some would love it. Have more standard hours, make less, but have time to relax and enjoy the other aspects of life, like family.
Not that I know anything, but I've always wondered what would happen if the loan forgiveness logic were extended. What if the government (or some public-private partnership) guaranteed high salaries for doing primary care in these areas? If the government were guaranteeing competitive benefits, malpractice protection and a minimum $350k salary to practice primary care in rural Kentucky, wouldn't market forces drive primary care docs there?
The 5 most impoverished states actually have the 5 highest median salaries for PC docs. The problem, as someone else said, is that they have better $$ but live in areas that don't have great schools for their kids or the attractions/amenities to retain those physicians. That's why those states have been trying to expand nursing and midlevel programs.
Mid-levels providing primary care or medical schools training medical students who will be limited in the residency positions they can choose to family medicine, gen surg, psych or OB.
Even in OB/GYN the mose with physicians has been pushing to fellowships and specialization. It's almost too expensive to have an MD handle routine annuals for gynecologic patients. That's why you see so many fellowships in gynecologic oncology, high-risk pregnancy, etc.
This is where my own rant begins. First off, everyone needs to stop blurting out Econ 101 crap. Healthcare economics are way too difficult to water down to general supply/demand arguments, even dealing with just doctor supply. Healthcare is one of the least transparent markets in the US - a practice or hospital has a charge rate for a specific procedure, insurance has a negotiated rate for that procedure, and then we all have different co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurances. I had a cystectomy performed 2 weeks ago. Someone else with different insurance, done in the same hospital, with the same doc, will probably not be paying the same.
So the greater question really should be, is there a doctor shortage and what to do about it, but what is the roll of a doctor? Should the structure of primary care be the same? Should those be loaded with mid-levels? You're already seeing in Urgent Care groups a handful of MDs overseeing a team of NP/PAs spread over 3-5 clinics. They are there to see patients, but also to oversee and be used for referral in difficult cases. You only need one general to win a battle if they're provided with great field commanders. I for one, welcome this.