Low blow. Recommending that I don't sell food to the poor for "profit" is the same difference. I have to feed my family too and without making a profit I have

Low blow. Recommending that I don't sell food to the poor for "profit" is the same difference. I have to feed my family too and without making a profit I have no time to spend feeding the poor, so I don't. The assumption of the free market that you refer to is specifically: no coercion occurs (it's not "your" assumption I understand that, but it is the necessary prerequisite of a free market). If that specific condition is not met it's not a free market transaction. The free market is not some imaginary utopia, it's what happens when two non coerced people trade. If you add coercion, free market theories don't apply because there is no free market. It's not a free market transaction if the poor are robbed. It's not a free market transaction if fraud occurs. To be a free market transaction both parties have to voluntarily execute the contract; most times a simple verbal one like I do when I hand over my money for groceries. Being sick does not mean coercion occurs. It's unfortunate and it would be great if someone could help for free. But it's even better that there are trained professionals who can make a living helping the sick as they can refine their skill set over an entire lifetime. To do this however, they have to turn a profit otherwise the activity is unsustainable; they too need to feed their families and can't dedicate 100% of their time to helping others without charge. Again this assumes no coercion, which unfortunately these conditions do not exist in North America; government regulation in healthcare by its very definition means coercion of healthcare providers by the government, under penalty of force and arrest for non compliance.