I recently saw a cartoon that contrasted the fact that Americans have a right to guns but not to healthcare. Clever, right? The problem is that even a cursory look at the comparison shows it to be nonsense. No one is required to buy a gun for me whereas this right to healthcare would require someone to pay for my medical care if I was unable.
If there was an amendment for healthcare similar to the 2nd Amendment, it might say something to the effect that "the right of the people to purchase healthcare insurance shall not be infringed." Would banning cross-state purchase of insurance be an infringement? Would requiring that Americans buy government-approved health insurance plans be an infringement? Or going the other way, does the 2nd Amendment require every American to own a gun or be forced to pay a fine to the IRS? Do we need to demonstrate gun ownership on a yearly basis? Does the gun have to have all sorts of extras that we don't need or want?
The Rights listed in the Constitution do not require that someone else provide them. The Right to Free Speech doesn't require taxpayers to provide a forum in which to speak. The Right to Practice Religion doesn't require that the government build the church. By the same logic, a Right to Healthcare should not require the government/taxpayers to purchase it.
The confusion here is entitlement vs. right. Americans have a right to bear arms but an entitlement to Social Security. Social Security is not a right. Nor is Medicare. Nor is health insurance as determined by Obamacare. These are all programs for transferring money from the person who earned it to someone who didn't. I'm in favor of Rights - which our government was established to secure - but I'm opposed to entitlements.