Define "capitalism" [0]: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Define "free market" [1]: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government. (Note: the first definition is a bit vague, so I used the second entry.)
Hospitals aren't competing in a free market. They don't suck because of capitalism, they suck because of government intervention. Right now our medical system is basically the worst of both worlds--it's not affordable nor universal.
If hospitals and doctors were operating in a free market then it would lead to lower prices and an increase in quality. You can see some evidence of this in medical areas which aren't typically covered by insurance and are less heavily regulated, with laser eye surgery probably being one of the best examples.
You've managed to identify that the problem is government intervention, yet you appear to hint at trying to solve the problem with even more government intervention? Historically that hasn't gone over very well. Have you seriously considered alternatives? I believe a medical system cannot provide more than two of the following three guarantees: affordability, quality, and universality. This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I think dropping universality is the best choice. You can still maintain a social safety net to catch people that fall through the cracks, and I posit that it would be cheaper and superior to our current system.
Define "free market" [1]: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government. (Note: the first definition is a bit vague, so I used the second entry.)
Hospitals aren't competing in a free market. They don't suck because of capitalism, they suck because of government intervention. Right now our medical system is basically the worst of both worlds--it's not affordable nor universal.
If hospitals and doctors were operating in a free market then it would lead to lower prices and an increase in quality. You can see some evidence of this in medical areas which aren't typically covered by insurance and are less heavily regulated, with laser eye surgery probably being one of the best examples.
You've managed to identify that the problem is government intervention, yet you appear to hint at trying to solve the problem with even more government intervention? Historically that hasn't gone over very well. Have you seriously considered alternatives? I believe a medical system cannot provide more than two of the following three guarantees: affordability, quality, and universality. This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I think dropping universality is the best choice. You can still maintain a social safety net to catch people that fall through the cracks, and I posit that it would be cheaper and superior to our current system.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market