A capitalistic system will maximize for one thing and one thing only: Profit.

If anything else improves, such as service, cost, or wait times, it will only by as a byproduct of increasing profit. If there are easier, faster, or cheaper ways of increasing profit (such as cutting staff and having ~~customers~~ patients wait longer) then those will be done instead. The FDA exists because otherwise capitalistic companies will put customers health and lives in danger because it is more profitable to do so and pay out potential lawsuits than it is to make sure safety regulations are in place in the first place.

The only way to maximize something other the profit, such as customer service, is through regulation. That is why monopolies are illegal: if a customer doesn't have a choice you can charge them as much as you want, and take as long as you want, and perform as poorly as you want, and they still have to use your service because they have no other choice. When a ~~customer~~ patient needs to go to the hospital they don't have the luxury of "shopping around", they have a medical emergency and need help now. So without regulation a profit motivated hospital can charge whatever they want, especially considering nobody discusses prices before doing life saving operations.

"lack of market freedom" is not the reason 1 Tylenol pill at a hospital costs you $15.
"Excessive regulation" is not the reason patients are charged $40 for crying.
"Lack of competition" is not the reason asking for an itemized bill will save you money. “It’s estimated that about 60 percent of medical bills that are issued have errors” (I can't think of any other industry that would consider that acceptable.)

What specific regulations would you remove from hospitals, and how would the absence of those regulations directly help ~~customers~~ patients?

The US is last place in the linked article while having the most profit driven hospital system of the countries compared. Making it even more profit driven is not going to improve the thing ~~customers~~ patients need improved.

Not really true about Netherlands:

The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private mandatory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from earmarked taxation under the provisions of the Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten, which came into effect in 1968. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands#:~:text=Health%20insurance%20in%20the%20Netherlands,long%2Dterm%20nursing%20and%20care.

See the social insurance aspect? The largest financial burden to the Healthcare system is usually a person's last 5 years of life, so they've socialized the expensive parts of healthcare and privatized the cheaper stuff.

For Switzerland:

The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan. If a premium is too high compared to the person's income, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to help pay for the premium.[8]

This isn't something done in every US state, to be clear. In some states it's very hard to access healthcare if you can't afford the premium. This lack of coverage often creates a heavier burden on healthcare systems because people are uninsured.

Several times I've had to wait for months on healthcare in the US system. This is such a weak argument against a socialized system.

That's how I see it, and half the population wants that.

I disagree, when they prevent a system that benefit all including themselves, they are actively acting like sadists who want to see the suffering of those who cannot afford to pay.

When we find the military and give weapons to countries like Israel and many others across the world, it raises the stock prices of military contractors and congress gets more personal wealth.

A public option for healthcare would lower stock prices for health care companies and insurance companies which congress is also heavily invested in.