"Free market" has an actual definition.

And no. There is not, in fact, a truly "free market" in the world, in the sense that people frequently talk about in terms of "the free market will solve XYZ". Because it's an idealized abstraction used to talk about the theory and philosophy of market economics.

I don't claim to be deeply conversant with the theory, but I do know that a truly free market requires:

1. Commoditization: The products or services need to be effectively interchangeable, aside from features and price on which different vendors can compete

2. Perfect information: The buyers and sellers all need to be perfectly informed about all aspects of the products or services (including things like, "was this made with slave labour?")

3. Unconstrained ability to choose: The buyers must have no constraints on their choice beyond those actively under competition—they can't, for instance, be lying on a gurney with their appendix rupturing while deciding which hospital to give their "business" to. They also can't be so hungry that they must buy food now or risk starvation, or under such tight financial constraints that they must choose the very cheapest option or risk destitution.

If a given market does not exhibit even one of these characteristics, it cannot be considered a "free market" of the type we should expect to arrive at the ideal distribution of resources.

That’s not the point. If this post is trying to argue that high prices are all just caused by greedy capitalists, then pointing out the three most heavily government-manipulated markets does not exactly support the hypothesis.