I interpreted you were holding them accountable to answer the question of expanding/fixing health care in the short term. Clearly their answers are going to be in the context of their limited power to change the whole system without the cooperation of others. They need the cooperation of both the capital holders / owners of the health care industry as well as regulators and legislators. I think when you answering this question, they are answering it within the context of working within their current constraints, which can be quite tight.
To say they are the one to answer the question, in my opinion, is to shift the onus on them to answer it. In fact we need the feedback of these workers, and they're critical in us solving current problems. They need our cooperation. But I think framing the question as something they're supposed to answer, as you have done, narrows the focus on people not to be blamed for the constraints that hold them back and thus force an otherwise unreasonable answer.
Along with the second most critical resource that we expect them to have for us: empathy. Especially for those who won't vax.
If somebody says it isn’t possible, fire them and find somebody who can figure it out. It’s a fucking emergency, remember? It’s completely possible. Saying otherwise is an excuse. Figure it the fuck out.
Zero excuses.
(Or the more simple answer is there actually isn’t a problem with hospital capacity because otherwise we’d have fixed it. You know… because it is something that could be fixed… with money alone)
So I find that a very, very weird implication for you to make.