I agree, I don't think capitalism is inherently at odds with quality healthcare, and technically private equity isn't either but it certainly raises the chances. PE firms tend to be fairly parasitic with their investments - maybe that's fine for a restaurant chain but that sucks when you're dealing with lives (people or animals). I used to be in health insurance and you knew when there were nursing homes and clinics/faciltiies that were owned by PE. PE-owned nursing homes tend to have far more infractions against them, more elder abuse claims, and lower quality of life for the residents. You could say well PE buys up facilities that have room for improvement, which sometimes that's true, but in many times they seem to buy because (imo) they feel they can get by with lower regulatory enforcement so can cut costs and squeeze them. Sometimes they do buy or build higher-end senior living facilities but those are cash cows in their own way that you don't want to cut corners with.

Your thesis in defense for-profit healthcare is that PE and capitalism are not the same thing, and are not 'at odds' with quality care?

You are asserting that these excess deaths and real harms due to these takeovers are not natural and expected consequences?

What is the secret third thing that makes these otherwise compatible systems 'at odds' with human life?