Invoking positive rights tends to confuse people or lead to tangential arguments, so I've learned to avoid it.
I'd wager that finding positive rights confusing might be a typically American problem. In Europe the idea that rights aren't necessarily just "stuff the government should leave me alone about" is pretty widely accepted. Unfortunately America still has a hard time moving past naive 18th century liberalism in its political thinking.
But better health
for whom? If person A is healthy, why should they care that person B (who might be from a different social class, gender, race, etc.) is sick? If mere instinctive compassion were enough, we wouldn't be having these discussions to begin with. You can't answer this question without some kind of moral framework.
I highly doubt that much good will come out of US healthcare policy as long as this assumption is maintained.
