This is only on cursory thought about this, but so far I can’t see what value Habernas might have added to the Hayekian view. The commodification thing seems like Marxist error seeping in, and in the healthcare example confusing near (proximal) causes with far ones. And Horwitz introduced the same qualms about the possible “damage” from spontaneous orders here, but I didn’t find it very plausible when he suggested it either. I suspect that this kind of “harm” from spontaneous orders is the kind of thing you only see if you’re thinking like a statist.
For example, this:
“Excessive commodification takes place when exchange values and pecuniary motivations overtake use values in a way that subverts ethical concern.”
seems collectivist, like if you sorted out who was actually doing the valuing in each case (methodological individualism), the problem would disappear. If you come in with the assumption that there has to be a state, then I can see how you get there though, and that (statism vs. anti-statism) would be where the debate is.