Again, there is nothing to balance, nothing to compromise. It is a question between government respecting its responsibilities and limits, or not.
You're on the side of the government not only failing to do its duty but actively violating the rights of its citizens.
So what? It's a service.Giving the poor emergency health care allows them to sustain their life
A right to life is the basis for laws against violating one's right to life; we largely do this through making it illegal to kill other humans in aggression, with crimes ranging from manslaughter to murder.
A right to life does not entitle you to the service of others. A right to life does not entitle you to the goods of others.
Healthcare services involve an exchange - their labor for your money.
If you refuse to pay, and they refuse to work for free, then there's no obligation and no responsibility on the part of anyone else to provide you with a service you won't pay for anymore than you are entitled to walk up to a fast food counter and demand a cheeseburger without paying for it.
Protecting your self from harm is not the wild west.
People today do it all the time. They are not living in the wild west.
Personal safety has always been in your own hands. That isn't going to change.
You are arguing against what the court decided.
Citing a flawed jury decision does not help you at all.
They are established to govern.
And the "right" is not what you think it is.
You have a right to your life without undue outside interference. That is all.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.