The healthcare marketplace is hardly capitalist. It's deeply influenced by government policy and spending, as most healthcare expenditure is for the old, and it goes through Medicare.
If the US healthcare market isn't capitalist, then no country's healthcare system is.
It's rare to find a way to "no true Scotsman" as hard as communists, but you've managed it.
But to address your point: contrary to what you're implying, Medicare spending is actually lower on average relative to spending on 65+'s in other countries; in e.g. the NHS, they're 18% of the population and 40% of the spending[1]. i.e. per-person spending is much higher in retirees. Contrast this with the US where per-medicare-enrollee spending (13k) is almost the same as the average spending (12.5k), because the non-socialized (capitalist) part of the market pays so much more than in other developed countries, that it doesn't bring down the average despite the younger cohorts having many fewer health problems.
> If the US healthcare market isn't capitalist, then no country's healthcare system is.
Yes.
That said, developing countries are most likely to have one. If the government caps the number of doctors and hospitals in the country, like the US does with residencies and certificate of need laws, it's not very market-driven.
The government does not cap the number of doctors. There's no law that you can only have X doctors. What it caps is the amount of social help it's willing to subsidize. This is like complaining that the government is not "socialist" enough and therefore socialism is bad.
No, the US government caps the number of doctors because Medicare funds residency slots, and you have to get through one of those to get a license to be a doctor.
> There's no law that you can only have X doctors.
We have tons of these laws. All occupational licensing requirements are this law; that's the whole point of them.
The US government caps the number of residencies it is paying/subsidizing. Yes, you have to go through residency, but there's nothing stopping the private sector from taking on this cost (well, other than greed)
> Point me to one law that says you are not allowed to have more than X doctors.
Why can't we have doctors that other countries have agreed are qualified to be doctors?
Also, do you know how certificate of need laws work? It literally says you can't have a hospital unless the other nearby hospitals agree you can have it.
Taxi medallions are truly a "there can only be X many people doing this" system, but even if they're not written that way, these other laws are still intended to restrict the supply of healthcare.
nb my issue isn't whether the healthcare system is "socialist" or not, it's that it's bad. I don't think "just make the government pay for everything" is a solution to things costing too much though; if an ambulance ride costs $9000 the solution is to make it not cost that, not to share paying for it.
It's rare to find a way to "no true Scotsman" as hard as communists, but you've managed it.
But to address your point: contrary to what you're implying, Medicare spending is actually lower on average relative to spending on 65+'s in other countries; in e.g. the NHS, they're 18% of the population and 40% of the spending[1]. i.e. per-person spending is much higher in retirees. Contrast this with the US where per-medicare-enrollee spending (13k) is almost the same as the average spending (12.5k), because the non-socialized (capitalist) part of the market pays so much more than in other developed countries, that it doesn't bring down the average despite the younger cohorts having many fewer health problems.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/01/ageing-brita...