I think you were modded down for insinuating that the issue is simply one of whether "healthy people are better to have around than sick people", and thus that knb is trivializing the value of healthy people. This is a ridiculous position to impute to someone, and doesn't help the discussion.
knb's point (on any charitable, contextual reading), is that doctor's aren't responsible for most of the health that exists ("Doctors add little net value"), not that "making people healthy adds little value". Comments like yours -- tarring people who dispute the value added by much of mainstream medicine as "against health" -- seriously degrade the debate over this important issue. While we might not have much impact on the "demogogues in the wild", a comment like yours certainly warrants the disdain it received here.
My point (on any charitable, contextual reading) is that there is no necessary reason why doctors do not add value, and so simply asserting that they don't without further support is bad. Good ol' charity and context.
A feature in Scientific American magazine casts some light on the troubled state of modern medicine.
Health Care Myth Busters: Is There a High Degree of Scientific Certainty in Modern Medicine?
Short excerpt:
Scientific American often gates its online articles after some time has passed, so I don't know how long it will be available.