Of course they do. Who does more for the economy: a worker at home in bed from a treatable condition, or that worker going to his job? Hmmm.
I could do a line-by-line "rebuttal" as you have done, but I simply ask you to consider this:
Who would be better motivated to do better and more work, a worker whose livelihood depends on how good a job he does, or one whose livelihood (or at least the "right" to live as well as anyone else does) is guaranteed either by the government or the union, regardless of what he does?
That's the whole premise of the argument between socialism and libertarianism (oh, that and the whole question of fundamental liberty, but that's philosophy; nothing practical about it).
Socialism tries to ignore human nature. Libertarianism tries to work with existing human nature. It's up to you to decide which is a more
P.S. BTW, even with all the supposed de-regulation, the U.S. financial sector was far, far from being "free market". For one, legislations like CRA practically forced mortgage lenders to take bad loans (I'm not talking about "minorities" specifically, I'm simply talking about those who couldn't afford the houses they bought). And even when we suppose that CRA had no bad unintended consequences on the financial sector, at this point we shouldn't spend public money on "bailout", because apparently some banks still managed to make good investments and they can carry us through. If anything, we should encourage (not pressure), deals like Chase's buyout of WaMu and keep government hands (and public funds) out of these purely private endeavors.