Rand Paul on the “right” to health care:
Elaborating a bit on Paul’s argument, a “right to health care” necessarily comes down to something like this:
Because I am a human being [or an American], I may demand the services of a health care professional, his staff, and his equipment, regardless of my ability to pay for these services.
Imagine now that in a particular geographical area, not a single doctor is willing to treat a patient named John Doe. Maybe John Doe doesn’t have money, or maybe he is violent, or maybe he ignores the recommendations of doctors.
If there is a right to health care, it is essential that at least one doctor in the area be forced to treat John Doe. This can be done with a law that defines certain repercussions for disobedience, such as a fine or prison sentence. Thus, someone (a doctor), facing the threat of violence against his person or property, is forced to do something he would not otherwise do. If he refuses to treat John Doe, he is subject to punishment.
Such a system is not qualitatively different from the system of slavery. In the system of slavery, the words of the master are the law for the slave. Any violation of that law by the slave is punishable, perhaps with additional work or a beating, and thus the slave is forced to do something he would not otherwise do. If he attempts to resist the master’s law, he is subject to punishment.
The same parallel exists for any service or good. To claim that you have a “right” to health care, clean water, and good food is equivalent to claiming that you have the right to force others to provide you with said health care, clean water, and good food, against their will.