Having more than one right (i.e. "rights") entails contradictions between competing rights. That's how the real world works. Even if you view rights as "freedom from," the right to "freedom from harm" immediately conflicts with speech, gun ownership, and whatever else. If you don't think there's a right to freedom from harm that competes with those other rights, I don't know what to tell you.

The real work of governance and legislation requires carefully negotiating trade-offs between competing priorities in an ever-changing world.

Beyond that though, it is reasonable in our world for citizens of a state to view affordable access to a minimal standard of medical care as a bedrock right afforded to all citizens, and to build their state around this assumption. The same can be said of access to education, or legal representation or access to clean water and energy. It is then incumbant upon the legislating body to provide for those rights, which enter conflict the second there's a budget to consider.

The fact that positive rights are "leftist" in some parts of the world reflects a degree of deep ideological incoherence and immaturity in those parts, more than anything, I think.

Also I can't for the life of me understand why we'd craft policy in some kind of timeless vaccuum. We don't live in a timeless vaccuum. Some of us are fortunate enough to be born into states with stable, well-established educational, judicial, transportational, financial, medical (etc. etc.) infrastructure that is substantially owned and operated by the state or state-regulated monopolies. It's pretty natural to view fair and equitable access to these as baseline rights.