No, but the landlord has those too. Or at least, some landlords have them.
So, you have the landlord having mortgage costs, maintenance costs, insurance costs, and still wanting a profit. And you have the homeowner, having mortgage costs, maintenance costs, insurance costs, but getting to keep what would have been the landlord's profit.
1. Many small landlords are not very financially sophisticated and won't factor in all costs when setting rent prices. For example, maintenance costs are often treated as one-time events ("the water heater broke") and not something to build into the cost of owning the home. I have relatives like this, and they generally view the appreciation on the property as their profit.
2. It's not uncommon for "landlords" to be renting out part of the house they're still living in. In these cases the rent can be somewhat arbitrarily related to the cost of the mortgage.
3. More sophisticated landlords often still have to compete with rents set by (1) and (2). At least in some markets.
So, you have the landlord having mortgage costs, maintenance costs, insurance costs, and still wanting a profit. And you have the homeowner, having mortgage costs, maintenance costs, insurance costs, but getting to keep what would have been the landlord's profit.
So the GP still has a valid point.