If you're so right about the evils of "profitability", it would make far more sense to have as many healthy, insured people as they can; with the premiums, that's virtually an annuity. Not JUST the healthy, but get everyone healthy. WELLNESS! You can't scream "PROFIT!" like it's screaming the "n-word", then ignore all the behaviors that belie the profit motive.
It's not evil, its just not well suited for solving certain types of problems, in particular ones that require protection for all people regardless of individual ability to fund it, hence why capitalist societies still have core services like Police, Firefighting etc funded publicly. This is my main point of contention with most right wingers I have met: the market does not always solve the problem well.
Ignoring the "right wingers" for a moment (not all "right wingers" - in the full sense of the word - are ardent capitalists and vice versa), you're right, the market DOESN'T always solve the problem well, but that's not to say that it NEVER does, or that when it doesn't it's because of "free market!" and not "poor execution". Police and fire are not appropriate analogues to healthcare, because the rationales are somewhat different. We don't "not pay" for police and fire because of "free market" issues, but because of the compelling state interest that there be some arbitrary standard enforced - by government, thus government pays - and because allocation of costs would be brutal. How do you assess the fire department fees for a condo complex, or an apartment building? You don't. Were those two solely attributable to a single person every time, there would be no issue with a free market fire protection scheme.
The problem with "healthcare" is not the free market (or not entirely; there are some areas where it doesn't work. That miracle drug that is made from the distilled semen of the Australian aardvark and only helps the 18 people with that particular strain of flu). The problem with "healthcare" is the framework is messed up. You don't have responsibility and accountability in the same place - or even in the same ballpark - and the opaqueness of the layers is ridiculous. I've told this story before: my daughter went in for what turned out to be a routine infection - OTC for a week, and GONE - and during the discussion the doctor asked about a certain symptom, and she said "no, haven't had that, that I recall", and the doctor said, "well, have you had a [certain blood test] lately?" and she said "no, because I haven't had that problem". And he said, essentially, "well, let's do it. Insurance is paying anyway, and then you can say next time "had that test!"". That's not how "driving out costs" ought to work. If the doctor was paying for it, it wouldn't have happened. If my daughter - or I - was paying for it, that wouldn't have happened.
There are almost 1,000,000 doctors in the U.S. right now (last count I saw was about 970,000). If that $500 test happens even ONCE a year, for HALF of them, we're talking about $250 MILLION dollars of waste. A quarter of a BILLION dollars. We have this idea that "insurance will pay! F the insurers!" and yet, it's NOT the insurers that pay. At the end of the day, after the next rate cycle YOU pay. And you had no input into the cost, no ability to control it, and no accountability for the spend itself. THAT'S why the system is not working. Not "free markets" (because without a free market, that test is perhaps $750, or $1000, and the mechanism is still the same, and the waste is 50% or even 100% higher).