In quite many cases I'd prefer a good doctor right now rather than trying to buy my way in some far away spot in best doctor's schedule.

And practice is supposed to be covered by med school and supervised residency, isn't it? The question mainly isn't about inexperienced surgeons, but about experienced surgeons who simply are poor at the actual surgical technique, and possibly won't ever get much better.

And choosing who gets which doctor based on, say, patient paying ability is actually better than the current semi-random choice - because it creates motivation for the worst surgeons to, well, try something else - if they're smart doctors, then they can be useful without cutting people up.

In America, from the people who cannot pay for the best.

Not sure if you meant that to be a criticism, but... exactly.

I look at it as a good thing since the alternative to letting quality seek compensation advantages is to accept a general malaise of mediocrity like we have in public education.

In America, people who cannot afford the latest $1.99 app created by some startup ending in -ly or .io are getting surgical care provided by some of the best surgeons in the nation. This is because the people who cannot pay end up at their local hospital, which for many people (in, e.g., Baltimore, Boston, New York, etc.) ends up being the nation's best hospitals, where they are treated by some of the nation's best surgeons supervising the best surgeons-in-training.