This is a struggle for me. It seems reasonable to me that there should be access to basic medical care for all citizens with as little standing in the way of this care as possible. No one should die from Dysentery in the United States. On the other hand, if Pyro_Peter's Nuclear Anti-cancer Medicines, Inc. spends $10,000 to make each Fermium Armed Genetically Tailored Smart Bomb Anti-Cancer Pill then I completely understand that if we want more FAGTSBAC Pills (*whew* that was close to being a really baaaad acronym) then Pyro_Peter's Nuke Pills, Inc. must charge more than $10,000 for that pill.
I think the tough part here is that the line for "reasonable access to basic care" is in different places for different societies. I'd also be concerned that the act of drawing that line would be sufficient force to prevent it from naturally rising with time. What if that line was drawn in the 1920's US? Where would medicine be today? Would we have some metric like the Consumer Price Index but for medical care to keep moving that line up?
Finally, and I know this is diverging from the actual topic of this thread, it is clear to me that your right to health care is a different sort of right than your right to free speech or your right to be free from unreasonable searches. No one else has to do anything for you to speak or for you to not be searched. Health care is different. Someone else has to do something for you to have a right to health care. What if they don't want to? Can you (or a government agent working on your behalf) compel someone else to provide you care?
It is a complex issue and the more closely I look at it the more complex it seems to get.