> I'd have more respect for you if you called me an idiot for my views

Well, since you're inviting personal criticism, then, and suggesting it might engender more respect for critics and their opposing points than a doctor weighing in on your position...

It'd seem that you suffer from all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking -- that when confronted with tension between two ideals you don't know what to do except pick a single winner and declare that any attempt to balance tension between the two as an unacceptable compromise against the value you've judged higher.

I'd also guess that if you think that government services are theft, you might have built a philosophy around property rights without ever having thought much about property itself, which is about a real, universal, and solid as the cartesian plane at best.

Finally (and perhaps most specifically and pertinently), while I'd be willing to believe that you may be familiar with the regulatory aspects that directly affect your professional life (and invite you to express your confidence about this by drawing attention to the specific market vacuum you've left behind in case someone else doesn't share your opinion), your summary doesn't seem to me to be a particularly accurate description of the state of values/laws when it comes to health care in the US.

For example, if you're talking about EMTALA as the decades-old invocation of care rights (and I'm not sure what else you would be talking about), there a number of key caveats that I'd think would prevent any sensible person from characterizing it as slavery, perhaps most notably that (a) there's only obligation incurred for institutions that choose to accept medicare payments AND (b) it doesn't compel anyone to into going into providing emergency service in the first place, it compels those who choose to provide emergency service (and accepting medicare) to provide emergency service without regard to ability to pay.

If someone can choose to avoid providing a specific service (or stop when they like), and only incurs obligations by making an agreement with a specific payor, they're not a slave, and it's possibly more disingenuous to invoke the term in this context than it is to invoke the term "theft" when discussing taxes and government services.

> Its all just negotiating the terms of your slavery if you agree that people have the "right" to health care.

People do sometimes speak of the struggle many face for access to health care in terms of rights. Mostly what I think they're trying to express (sometimes poorly) is that they feel the value of giving every member of a society some minimum level of access to health care services is a good on par with the value of property rights, possibly higher. And as such it's worth some limited abridgment of the later.

There are some good arguments for this, even when starting with personal liberty/property rights as a high value: liberty and property don't mean much in a context where life and health aren't protected, and the related risk management and insurance is an area where incentives are screwy enough markets aren't great at the job, which is one reason you see people like Hayek support at least the idea of social insurance.