There's a lot of equivocation in the term "capitalists". Using the term to mean "people who want to take the capitalist system and turn it into a non-capitalist system that permanently writes their own benefit into it" is, well, I'll go with "not the path to clear thinking about the problem". I'm not comfortable calling it wrong, I mean, such people exist and in quantity, but it's definitely asking for muddled thinking on the topic to call someone deliberately tearing a system apart a name that implies them to be an advocate of that system.

Capitalists can mean ideological believers in capitalism, or it can mean those who own capital. The former may be interested in efficient markets; the latter generally only want to maximize returns.

Both will eventually merge into the same thing, so I struggle to see a real difference.

In a free market, the assumption is that everyone is a rational actor that will work in their own self-interest. People that want to maximize returns are behaving as you'd expect; someone not wanting to maximize profit in a free market would be considered an irrational actor.

Which, well, there lies the problem. For a lot of markets, maximizing profit comes at a very human cost. For healthcare the profit incentive is to have as many barriers to avoid paying individuals as possible because their profiteering is orthogonal to your well-being in most cases.

This is also why many markets can be considered short-sighted because it's easier to make returns now than it is to gamble on long term growth, which results in smash-and-grab style of corporate takeovers.

Ultimately even if we did have price transparency for healthcare all of the issues would still remain. It just can't work as a free market and going further in that direction is just pouring salt on a rotting wound.

No, they do not merge into the same thing. If you already have capital it is to your advantage to create a system where nobody new can compete with those who do - lest someone who doesn't have capital comes along and undercuts you.

Yes, and that was my point. Staunch supporters of capitalism often own capital. A great example is home ownership, which people use as an investment platform. Using your home as an investment platform means you have an interest in maintaining the value of your investment, which leads to things like NIMBYism or voting against measures that might help the city, but devalue your property.

The only way you could possibly maintain free market capitalism is by, ironically, putting in rules preventing people from using the free market in their own rational self interest. Which is why I believe healthcare can't be fixed by making it free-er, simply because the rational self-interest of insurance companies is against that of the insured.

that's why I want a clear distinction between the two. A lot of the second type of capitalist disguise themselves as the first type.

Theories about efficient market/exchange is _liberalism_. Capitalism is an ideology about who own the means of production: in this case, the person who own the capital. When the state OR a "commune" owns the mean of production, this is communism. But you can definitively have a "free market communism", except WTO will probably disagree on whether product issued by a state controlled industry really respect its rules.

You can also the two, like in the nordic countries (or germany) where employee actually have voting power about the strtegic orientation of the company (actually i think employees are considered "owning" 30% of the issued shares or something like that). From a (weird) point of view, this is 70% capitalism, 30% communism.

Look at the health system. There are a lot of capitalists who make a lot of money on their capital and don't seem very interested in change because most changes will cost profits. But from a market point of view the system is inefficient and lacks transparency .