Bert, I infer that your statement "there is free food" is a reference to government food give-aways or food stamps.
While the food is free to the recipient, it is not confiscated from the farmer or the grocer. It is purchased from the sources by State (and I include the Feds as part of the State, of course) and given to the recipients.
I once wrote a never-published op-ed piece describing "food maintenance organizations" as a continuation of the food simile, and then calling for "Medi-Stamps".

Wendell, I agree with much of what you say, and posit that we have more of a semantic difference than a philosophical one.
While the shout "FIRE!" example is oft presented as a limitation on free speech, I believe it is so only because of its impact on other individual's rights (e.g. right to be free of risk of harm).

Other countries who choose to provide health care services to the masses do so, I believe, without confiscating those services from the providers (as the several states and federal government does for many). They employ or pay for the services.

My point was there can not be an unfettered "right" to health care services without obliging SOME ONE to provide them. If the provider participation is voluntary for what ever compensation is provided for those services, then there is no compulsion to provide the services. But if a provider can choose NOT to provide services, then the "right" to health care cant' be enforced, and it really doesn't measure up to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
My fear of accepting the position that health care services is a right can lead to providers being forced by the power of the State to provide those services, under what ever condition the State decides upon; after all it is a "right".

Roger
(Nephrology)
Do the right thing. The rest doesn?t matter. Cold or warm. Tired or well-rested. Despised or honored. ? --Marcus Aurelius --