The Second Amendment acknowledges that I have a right to own a gun. But my right to obtain a firearm is not accompanied by a corresponding right to make you buy me one.
In the same way, I have a right to obtain all the health care I want or need. But that doesn’t mean I have the right to make you pay for it.
By “a right to obtain health care,” I mean there are no laws that prohibit my access to it. (There are notable exceptions, such as access to certain abortions, certain drugs, and physician-assisted suicide in most states. The argument can be made, however that while those might be physical care, they are not health care in most cases.) One of the many contradictions in the rhetoric of government-directed health care proponents is that the legislation they are advocating would impose legal restrictions on access – a result presumably at odds with their goals.
Let’s be honest about the terminology of the health care debate. If I have “a fundamental right to health care,” it simply means I have the “right” to make you pay for my health care. In other words, I have a fundamental right to your money. It doesn’t matter if you need your money for your own health care or other needs; I have the right to use the government as my agent to take your money to pay for my personal health care.
We can debate the merits and the constitutionality of whether I should have the right to your money (a debate I would welcome), but any honest debate must start by stipulating that this is the reality of the current notion of a “right to health care.”