No, they're not, because implicit in a right to healthcare is access to subsidy. There's literally no other way for it to be systemically provided. Literally every other option results in provisioning failure. The former requires and cannot not require the latter.
I have trouble understanding why social issues make nerds stop thinking systemically, but there you have it.
I'm not arguing against subsidy, everyone else is- most of the comments here are that rural citizens are 'getting what they deserve' because they don't vote correctly in national elections and burn too much carbon on the farm or whatever. I don't believe someone in SF has to subsidize a hospital in Alabama, but I do believe they have to subsidize a hospital in the Central Valley, either through taxation or through higher food prices.
I have trouble understanding why social issues make nerds stop thinking systemically, but there you have it.