What I mean is that the dynamics of healthcare are not conducive for a competitive market.

Compare grocery shopping:

You have frequent/repeated interactions; if you always get ripped of by one shop, you can go to another. Before you go grocery shopping, you will have a decent mental model for: prices levels at each shop, quality of produce and accessibility/distance. You also have the full choice in where to go, basically every time.

Hospital interactions (especially ER) is the polar opposite:

You will have few interactions with it over your lifetime (hopefully), costs are basically impossible to know beforehand (and difficult to compare, too), quality of treatment is extremely difficult to judge as patient (because every case is somewhat unique, and outcomes can easily come down to luck/individual doctor). Especially in the ER case, you often don't even have a real choice of hospital and even in cases where you could (and had all the info) there might be throughput limitations on "desirable" hospitals that prevent you from switching (=> having to wait for 5 months).

Another factor I think is that hospitals gain less from being "good": As a "good" grocer, you get to steal market share from your competition at low cost and risk to yourself; for the hospital, scaling up is more difficult and risky, thus "good" competitors are also less threatening comparatively (thus less of a motivation to improve things).

So I understand where you're coming from, and there are certainly major market distortions in health in the US (employer-provided health insurance being the most obvious). But where I live, "which ER will you go to" is a major, market-driven conversation. I have 3 obvious options, and 2 of them are competitive, and if I go look for conversations and "reviews" I'll find plenty of opinions quickly. To me, it's at least as competitive as the market for plumbers.