Not to arbitrarily pick fights on online forums, but because this just got a handful of comments:
"Health Care Is Not A Right" is founded on a definition of "right" typically only used by libertarians, that of the "negative right" or right against some specific action. Thus the right against being unjustly deprived of your life, the right against being unjustly deprived of your liberty, and the right against being unjustly prevented from pursuing happiness. And unjustly, in each of these cases, is an important term, because you have no absolute rights, any and all rights may be abrogated given sufficient outside interest. If you read Mills, the closest thing the individual has to an absolute right is that to self-defense.
The notion of rights is a relatively recent one, and they have been and still are restricted to those classes of people who gain sufficient power to demand them, see women until 1921, not including the right to equal pay for equal work, or non-whites until 1964. If one reads the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a new definition of rights arises from the newfound social responsibility realized after facing the potential for mutual annihilation - positive rights, rights to be afforded some minimum aid when structural and institutional forces otherwise prevent you from enjoying your other rights. It is from this definition of rights that the right to health is constructed, and this is central to the straw-man argument Peikoff relies upon. The right to health care it is not a right to unlimited health care, which is absurd and easily argued against. It is a right to a minimum standard of health which could be easily defined by legislation, community rationing, or resource constraints. We've established a right to emergency care already in this country, some of the most expensive care we can come up with in terms of over-treatment, and we'd be much better off if we included primary or preventive care to keep all the colds and runny noses out of our EDs. We will be much closer to "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [sic] are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if we can allow everyone in our country the chance to live, be free, and pursue happiness by enjoying a minimum standard of health. But you can't expect much from a man whose only sources are himself and Ayn Rand.
I'll stop before I digress to making snide remarks about future doctors who don't think their patients have a right to care.
