The debate on health care reform is being grossly distorted by those who insist on calling health care a "basic human right" because, of course, if you call it a right then you can simply dismiss as evil anyone who disagrees with you. This is utterly ridiculous, but it is about par for the course. Is the average American education really this lacking in the basic use of logic? If health care is a right then every impoverished nation that blatantly and obviously cannot afford health care is depriving its citizens of a basic human right based on nothing more than affordability. What a ludicrous idea. This notion of health care as a right could only be argued through the arrogance of the wealthy and, make no mistake America, we are wealthy. Take your delusions about false rights to a country where most people can't afford shoes and see if you don't get laughed at.
This is the natural consequence of the growing belief that "whatever I want is a right", with no comprehension of what "right" actually means. There has never, until now, in the history of the philosophy of rights been a belief that a right could compel someone else to do something. Rights require someone else to not do something. There is a small but critical difference.
My right requires you to not interfere with my free speech, but it does not require you to listen nor does it require you to give me a stage. My right requires you to not take away my gun, but it does not require you to give me a gun nor does it require you to own a gun. My right requires you to not interfere with my free exercise of religion, but it does not require you to agree with my religion nor does it require you to give me a church. Do you see where this is going?
Your so-called right to health care requires someone else to give you health care. Your right makes someone else a slave. That is a contradiction that a true right cannot be. You can compel me to not strike you but you cannot compel me to assist you.
Is it a good idea to assist someone in need? Of course it is, and I don't know of too many people who are arguing otherwise. Despite the rhetoric of the left - calling those who oppose this "health care right" such wonderful names as "selfish", "greedy", and even "evil" - most of those on the No side of this debate are the very people who often donate to relief charities, volunteer at hospitals and homeless shelters, and otherwise give of both their time and money to help those who need help. This is not a debate over whether or not it is good to help people and characterising it as such is nothing more than deceit and character assassination to stifle debate.
What is being argued is whether or not it is acceptable to force people to help and who has the final authority on how to help.
Our health care system is an expensive, blundering mess, but that doesn't mean that replacing it with another expensive, blundering mess would be an improvement. There are things that need to be reformed - fraud and incompetence are rampant - but lying about the debate will not fix the problem. Dismissing the other side through some juvenile ranting about rights will not fix the problem. If you can't be bothered to even try to understand the nature of rights then just go text your buddies about how unfair it all is and leave the debate for the grownups.