Your definition of “rights” is inadequate because it does not differentiate between legal rights and moral rights which are clearly different things. You seem to phase in and out of each a bit too freely. It is not always clear from your argument if you are discussing moral rights or legal rights. I would define the two as, “moral rights” as being concerned about the ethics of rights and “legal rights” as what rights the law allows. When you state that good rights are those that do not force coercion what you seem to be talking about is a “moral right.” That is to say, it would be immoral to take someone’s choice away from them. This is a “moral right” because there are obviously legal rights that strip the individual of his or her rights. That is not to say that they are diametrically opposed. You state that moral rights should be cemented into law making them legal rights. You are stating that it is morally wrong to force someone to do what they do not want to do, therefore it should be legally wrong as well.

I agree that moral rights should govern legal rights, but I would argue that your original premise is wrong and that there is not as strong a moral right for the freedom of will as you claim. Imagine you are walking down the street and see a small child drowning in a pool. You are a very strong swimmer and could easily rescue the child, but if you did so you would have to dry clean your new suit and could be late for work. Legally you have the right not to save the child, but rational people know you do not have the moral right to walk away. This is because the level of incontinence to you is miniscule compared to the benefit of the other party. In the context of the example, shelling out the money to get your suit dry cleaned is trivial compared to the life of the child. This is the opposite of what you are indicating. You are stating that even a minute inconvenience to the individual is far more important than the health and well being of another. This is not a sound argument, even within your own logic. You state that, “Such rights [rights that do not infringe on the choice of others] do not force anyone else to do anything - other than leave you alone.” Under pure freedom of speech we have the right to leave someone alone or not leave someone alone. Therefore pure freedom of speech is a right of the individual, and, under your definition of what is a valid right, a person has the RIGHT not to leave others alone. You, as an individual, do NOT have the right to be left alone because it infringes on another’s right of unforced will. This is a contradiction within your own logic. Someone cannot have the right to be left alone and the right to never be forced to do something against their will. Therefore, a more logical statement is, someone should never be forced to do something against their will unless the price to that individual is trivial compared to the benefit of another. Even if a person does not want to leave someone else alone, it is trivial for that person to keep their mouth shut. Thus it is an acceptable infringement on their right of free will.

Health care, if done properly, can be the same way. Your suggestion of a doctor giving away health care for free by law is absurd and a clear violation of the doctor’s right of choice. Because to treat too many patients for free would have a nontrivial affect on the doctor’s livelihood and thus be immoral. But there can certainly be a system that effects everyone’s right of free will so trivially that and still have it save lives – a very non trivial thing indeed. Just as there can be a right of freedom of speech that still allows for people to be left alone. It is clear that by examining the problem using a more even handed logic, health care to some extent, is a moral right. And, by your own logic, moral rights should guide legal rights.

OK, obviously I'm being hit with an attempt to win an argument via overwhelming verbiage and obfuscation, but I'll try to respond.

When I talk about rights, I am talking about things that belong in the Constitution (e.g., The Bill of Rights). This should be obvious, since I'm talking about an article proposing a Constitutional amendment.

Your claims surrounding freedom of speech are incorrect. Freedom of speech is not a contradiction of the statment that rights should not force you to do anything other than leave someone alone. No one is forced to listen to any speech (e.g. read a book, watch a film) - much to Michael Moore's chagrin, I'm sure.

Finally, it's clear that you believe that the state is an omniscient authority that is able to allocate resources effectively. Unfortunately, history is not on your side. Even if health care could properly be a right (which it cannot), it still wouldn't be a good idea to make it a right. The state is the most inept and beauracratic organization in society (which is mostly unavoidable). That's why the state should be in control only when there is absolutely no other way to handle things (e.g., the court system), and not for things like health care or retirement savings.

Nonsense!

The truth is you don't want health care as a right, because you have your buttocks covered already.

You don't want public healthcare, neither in the constitution or anywhere else.

FYI, free public health care is working well where I live, so drop all the arguments about how impossible public health care would be.