One could argue that this "right" has already been "bestowed" on humanity by Article 25 of the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which reads:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
This is even more pernicious that it seems at first glance. To condense it without losing the substance one could rewrite this and state: "Someone else has to adequately support your livelihood when circumstances beyond your control interrupt your own ability to do so."
Who defines "adequately"? You or the someone who supporting you? Who defines "beyond your control"? You or the someone supporting you? Who defines "your own ability"? You or the someone supporting you?
Giving to the poor or needy is called charity. Charity is a voluntary act. No one forces me or anyone else to give to a cause or an individual. I give (and I do) to those individuals and organizations "I" feel are deserving. The "human right of health care" (AKA community medicine) forces me through taxation or other instruments to support people I neither know nor give a whit about.
CAF, the Charities Aid Foundation, conducted a study in 2006 on charitable giving in the most developed countries. One of their conclusions reads:
"giving tends to represent a lower proportion of GDP in countries with higher levels of personal taxation, particularly social insurance; if social insurance payments were to rise in the future because of the needs of an ageing population, this could represent a threat to voluntary income"
Fundamentally this means if you take money from people they will have less to give. Common sense, yes? What it also means, because people aren't stupid, is if you take money away for "needy others" (what we commonly call "transfer payments" or "Government dole"), they will give less to those in need. And that my friends is the crux of the matter.
There is an inherent flaw in the concept of some of these universal rights and it is this: When a right requires my unwilling participation then it is not a right except to the person receiving it. Rights should be equal to givers and receivers. In fact, if is a right then the concept of "giver" and "receiver" isn't even part of the equation.
The (now) U.S. Declaration of Independence had it right when it declared: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."