The traditional view of libertarian capitalists where government, democratic or otherwise, has no moral validity when regulating or prohibiting various forms commerce, falls on its face when confronted with the real world. The free market works passingly well for basic items that people are free to chose whether to purchase or not. It fails spectacularly when one party is forced. In situations such as those presented in TFA the market fails spectacularly, and government can and should step in, and so long as backed by the democratic will, has the moral justification to do so.
It's not a free market. The US health system is highly regulated, and most importantly, there is a huge tax incentive for health care to be paid for not by individuals but by employers who buy full coverage.
This response is common, but flawed. At root it is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Behind that, it argues, or at least heavily implies, that the only “true” free market is one wholly unburdened by regulation. Such a thing does not exist outside of history books, and there are good, historical reasons as to why.
The fundamental premise, though — that the market is not ideal for healthcare —- remains. For shoes and smartphones, the market is fine. For MRIs and insulin, it is not.
