You only have that right as a citizen of a country, governed by a document set in place centuries ago, that decided the rights of the individual should be paramount over the rights of the government.
Hint: Governments do not have rights. Government is a group and group rights do not exist. What government is given is authority to exercise power.
That's it.
The Constituiton places specific permissions and restrictions on how government can use power.
What all governments attempt to do is to expand it's available power to as far as the people government will allow. National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq under Hussein, other places, all succeeded in getting government with no limits on power. What Obama and the Left seek in America is government with no limits on power. In the US this conflict is fought on one front as expansions of non-existent rights that expand government power at the expense of real rights.
To put the blunt point on the matter, when a flaming libtard says "health care is a right", the FL is NOT saying "gee, people should not be legally denied a doctor's care by government edict". No, they're not saying that.
When the flaming libtard says "healthcare is a right", the little animal means that "you, the taxpayer, are a greedy cheap selfish son of a bitch who has to pay a boatload more in taxes to make sure total strangers get medical care that doesn't cost them a dime."
Whenever they say that this isn't what they mean, they're lying. The heart of socialist propaganda is the Lie.
Well, health care isn't a right, no matter how often the Useful Idiots proclaim that it is. When their paradise of socialised medicine is imposed on the US, the first thing that will happen will be the establisment of budgets that lead to rationing of this "right".
When the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting a man's freedom to own and carry a gun.
Thus, if the flaming libtards are saying that "health care is a right" but don't actually mean that you, the greedy cheapskate stingy selfish taxpayer will be gouged to provide free services for someone else, then their onus is to provide examples of how the government is actively moving to legally restrict health care access to Americans.
No one disagrees that people who can pay their doctor should be denied access to health care, hence that aspect of "health care" as a right is moot. The discussion of health care or food or water or air or housing or heating as "rights" to be denied by legislative fiat is not on the table. What is implied by calling those "rights" is the presumption that someone else will pay for them.
So, should anyone be required for someone else's health care/food/water/air/housing/clothing/transportation/recreation?