NO, HEALTHCARE ISN'T A "RIGHT" (just something a first world country should provide)

Neither side frames it's argument well in this debate. No, healthcare shouldn't be an enshrined right as Sen. Sanders claims. When legislating positive rights (ie. rights which demand an action or service of others) great care must be taken, as positive rights often inherently infringe upon the rights of others. This is why the US Bill Of Rights is written almost expressly as a charter of negative rights.

But, Sen. Paul does not do his argument any service by invoking slavery. Besides from being uncouth, it is not a particularly good comparison, given the amount doctors are paid (to mention but one obvious example of many issues). But as a student of and self-appointed protector of the constitution, he has a greater understanding of positive and negative rights, and their relevant impacts upon a society, than most.

Here's the thing though: Not every thing you want your country to do has to be mandated as a "right". Rights should be reserved for the bare necessities required to keep the country going and, as I've stated before, largely negative rights.

That said, there are some things that should be a prerequisite for a first world country, and one of those things is basic health care. Public healthcare doesn't need to be shoehorned into the constitution to be considered something a government should provide. But as one of the richest countries in the world the US, like all the others, should find the money to make sure that if you unexpectedly fall ill, it doesn't result in bankruptcy. That's just basic compassion.