Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There can be pernicious motives whether a facility is nominally for profit or not. This is colloquially known as "whataboutism". The fact that there are other pernicious motives is completely irrelevant. For-profit medicine constitutes a pernicious motive -- that's the point.
Well, I don't agree with that. I see generous salaries as being exactly the same thing as profit (they are just taxed differently). I also have difficulty with the idea that only de facto agents of the state can deliver healthcare (care only available at fixed prices, etc). So my point is that you need external controls regardless of the motivations of the actors inside the institution.
It seems that they aren't the only difficulties you have. In a social health-care system, possession of a medical license doesn't entail one's employer. You're more than welcome to set up private practice, though you'll have less chance of the career defining cases, as the majority of patients will not be using your one-man-band practice. Thus many doctors in the UK, split their time between their private practice and public services. The only thing that's "de-facto" is the need to be qualified to treat people.