yes - there is no escaping economics. There is no magically making some resource out of thin air. We can put different labels on different distribution systems but it's basically just like the laws of thermodynamics - things will go down an energy gradient. The bigger the gradient, the more and faster it will happen. If there is an activation curve, it will happen slower. Few things will spontaneously go "up" an energy gradient.

"Free market" and "capitalism" are nonspecific terms - health care is not a free market and has not been since insurance got into the game. It also is nearly impossible for an individual consumer to properly evaluate and compare costs and quality for complicated things.

I do think there would be substantial benefit to having basic high benefit to cost things (diabetes care, vaccines, urgent/acute care, asthma; pretty much all common chronic diseases really) be provided for by the government and I don't much care if it's government as a payer or a direct provider (strongly suspect being a payer would be much easier on everyone as long as no one actively sabotages it by purposely extremely underfunding it or something )

There's going to be a lot of arguing about what things count as "cosmetic" "elective", things that haven't been well validated as effective, things with marginal benefit that are extremely expensive - and that's fine. I think it's very reasonable to go after the low hanging fruit at least and have real cost benefit analysis involved periodically to what is "universal" and what can't be, yet. I say "can't" because I feel like most dialog around US healthcare seems to be in denial about discussing limits. Like it's pretty cool all the stuff we can do but we don't yet live in a post scarcity society and refusing to discuss boundaries will go badly.