I'm sensing a pattern here. Earlier, you basically said, "Guys, the free market can't be trusted to provide solutions for internet access, so we have to regulate them and grant monopolies. Oh crap, monopolies cause abuse of power. Also, please ignore the solution that the market came up with to all these problems (wireless Internet)."

Now you say, "Hey guys, allowing people to not be medically treated is immoral, so let's force people to provide a service because that is totally moral."

In both scenarios, you're trying to argue for something but you're not being consistent with your logic. You're picking and choosing data points and circumstances without being consistent across the board.