I think that as a matter of simple principle...the fact that the number of people in the world keeps growing...the fact that life expectancies keep lengthening...the fact that we keep finding more and more treatments, procedures and remedies to treat even more conditions...the necessarily, people cannot have a right to health care. It's simply an impossible goal. Look at advanced, developed Western nations struggling with the issue. Obviously it's not even a question in the rest of the world, so clearly they have no "right" to health care.

I think the very concept of having "rights" to things like health care, college education, internet access, etc...shows two things. It first shows the increasing lack of perspective that the advanced world has about the rest of humanity and limited resources. We somehow believe that if it's possible in a nation of high-end infrastructure with a rich economy to claim that health care should be a right, much less a "human right", that somehow or other these other nations will magically progress overnight because it's the right thing for their people. It's severe "living in a bubble" syndrome.

The second thing it shows is just how diluted and twisted the notion of "rights" have become in our country. I used to cringe every time I'd hear someone say something along the lines of "This is a free country. I have the right to do whatever I want." No, you don't. You have rights. They're written on an old piece of paper and pretty simple to understand. Want more? Get a constitutional convention going and amend it. Even if they're on there, you might be denied those anyway. Anything you assert as a "right" is meaningless unless you can get a majority to claim that right. In the United States, I feel that the Affordable Care Act does not constitute that majority, particularly since it does little to give anyone a "right" to health care. They only "right" they now have is to pay for health care or pay the government some money. That's not a right I think anyone wanted.

A right to an attorney is different first because it's included in the Constitution and therefore ratified. It's different also because the only time you need an attorney is when government seizes your freedom and holds it under determination of a court. The government is forcing you into a situation, so therefore it is incumbent on them to provide you with proper defense. That serves the cause of justice: the government may fuck you up, but they're going to give you a fair chance of avoiding it. However, if government had a responsibility to ensure everyone was always defended from death and illness, we would run out of money. Everyone will die one day. A lot of health care goes into keeping people alive who are not going to live for very long. At some point, resources will dwindle, and prioritization will begin. We're never going to have a giant surplus of medical staff, equipment, or supplies. They're always in demand. We have a giant surplus, on the other hand, of lawyers. Most people are not going to commit a crime serious enough to need a lawyer. Most people will fall seriously ill or be injured during their lives, and all of them will die one day. They are quite similar in nature, but the economics don't line up.

Should we have rights that compel other people to do things? That's a good question. I think the answer is that yes, but that we should use maximum restraint in considering them. Forcing someone to work for your benefit is slavery. I don't care what you want to call it...when your choice is doing so, or being penalized...that's slavery. Pay may be involved. They may enjoy it. Still slavery. So we have to ask ourselves whom in society should be made slaves to the populace. Now, as others have mentioned, we now have a law that emergency rooms cannot turn emergency cases away without insurance. Compare this to a 35-year-old case where police officers completely failed to do their jobs, allowing people to be robbed, assaulted, and kidnapped...and a judge found that the police have no legal duty to protect ANYONE. It would seem ludicrous to have a society where police officers are not bound to protect you from someone attempting to murder you, but a doctor is bound to bring you back to life because of that policeman's failure. If the cops aren't on board, why should those who hold our health in our hands be held to that standard?

Yes, because anything that is not an individual right is a collective right. I suppose there could be a third category of selective right but discrimination law in this country appears to preclude that from existing(coughaffirmativeactioncough). Any requirement of people to service or provide goods to other people under threat of penalty or imprisonment means denying the rights of everyone in that field. Collective rights take rights away from smaller groups to give benefits to the larger group. This is a destructive cycle, in my opinion, that has swallowed countries and societies whole for centuries.

I despise the state of health care in this country, but I don't have many answers. The only thing I really think would make a difference would be allowing inter-state sales of health insurance. The lack of competition in the national health insurance market only hurts consumers.