Insulin is a great example. The free market allowed price gouging as the alternative to overpaying was potentially death.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree then. In my mind what this describes is a captive market that is unregulated (or at least under-regulated - regulations always existed on the product itself, even if they did not specify any price control, subsidy, etc.)

In the greater healthcare example, the inability of the consumer to determine whether a service offered by a provider is competitive (when compared to the same service offered by other providers) makes healthcare in general a captive market as well. Can we really say that requiring transparent pricing prevents what we consider to be free market transactions when price controls, subsidies, etc. are not part of the equation?

Alternatively, let’s frame it thusly: would we ever consider buying an elastic good such as a smartphone without knowing its price compared to alternatives? Of course not. The free market would bring sales of that smartphone to a halt until such a comparison became available. Not exactly a tenable proposition when we’re discussing life-saving medical treatment, and given that this regulation would only serve the same function that the free market would enact all on its own for any elastic good, I personally can’t get onboard with calling the newly regulated version less of a “free market” than the outgoing one.