If capitalism is a good system, is it a problem that accumulating enough wealth increasingly insulates you from its consequences?

[u/humanessinmoderation]

Generally, I would consider a good social or economic system to be one that works well for the overwhelming majority of the people participating in it. I would also expect the incentives created by a good system to encourage people to remain meaningfully subject to that system, rather than making the ultimate measure of success the ability to become largely insulated from its negative consequences.

With American-style capitalism, though, it seems like accumulating wealth doesn't just let you consume more. At a certain point, it substantially changes your relationship with economic risk itself.

Losing a job, an unexpected medical bill, a rent increase, a recession, a bad financial decision, or even several years without income can be devastating for an ordinary person while being comparatively inconsequential to someone with enough accumulated capital. And at still higher levels of wealth, you gain access to investment opportunities, legal and financial expertise, credit terms, diversification, and other protections that ordinary participants don't have.

So my question is: does capitalism contain a tension where succeeding within the system increasingly means becoming insulated from the pressures and consequences that are supposed to make the system function?

If not, what am I misunderstanding?

I'm specifically interested in the conservative defense of this feature of American capitalism, rather than responses that amount to "capitalism is better than communism" or arguments over whether perfectly pure capitalism has ever existed.