There is no "right" to healthcare. That is a preposterous argument. Rights are a condition intrinsic to human existence -- "endowed by their Creator," if you will.
We have the
right to life, liberty, and property (the meaning behind the euphemistic phrase "pursuit of happiness"). We have the
right to speak and associate freely, to worship according to our conscience, to protect ourselves, to be safe in our homes from unreasonable search and seizure, to safeguard ourselves from self-implication, to a be tried speedily and impartially by a jury of our peers, to have a reasonable chance for bail when we are incarcerated.
Rights are timeless, for all ages and all mankind.
Medical care is something else entirely. It isn't inherent to human existence. It is very much a temporal development. It is a field of science and service humans have developed through research and technology. That takes work and money. If someone is going to offer medical services, they have the
right according to the "pursuit of happiness" clause to be fairly compensated for those services. No one has the "right" to demand those services, any more than he or she has the "right" to demand internet.
But I firmly believe that in another decade or so, we will see internet labeled a "human right" and calls for it to be provided to those who can't afford it, just as we've begun to see education labeled a "human right." There are already possibly rumblings of such a phenomenon in the netbook movement, which was originally designed to give computer access children in Third World countries who could not otherwise afford it. It just so happened, contrary to all expectations, that those same computers became wildly popular in Westernized countries too. Nowadays they seem almost as common as cell phones.
I find all the handwringing that surrounds medical moral dilemmas surrounding to be absurd. They're dilemmas of our own devising. They didn't exist 100 or even 50 years ago.
Healthcare isn't a right. It's a luxury. And luxuries you should have to work for.