Sometimes making something a right is the wrong way to provide it

There is really nothing new here, it’s just a good exemplar of an old point:

The Consequences of Treating Electricity as a Right

This paper seeks to explain why billions of people in developing countries either have no access to electricity or lack a reliable supply. We present evidence that these shortfalls are a consequence of electricity being treated as a right and that this sets off a vicious four-step circle. In step 1, because a social norm has developed that all deserve power independent of payment, subsidies, theft, and nonpayment are widely tolerated. In step 2, electricity distribution companies lose money with each unit of electricity sold and in total lose large sums of money. In step 3, government-owned distribution companies ration supply to limit losses by restricting access and hours of supply. In step 4, power supply is no longer governed by market forces and the link between payment and supply is severed, thus reducing customers' incentives to pay. The equilibrium outcome is uneven and sporadic access that undermines growth.

Some things are indeed rights and not only should but must righteously be supplied to all. Civil liberty, equality before the law, property rights. Somethings are badly provided if they are rights and therefore should not be such - health care, education, electricity, housing, food and so on. The difference being that old one of negative and positive rights of course.

Do note that even if something is not to be provided as of right there’s still plenty of room for government aid in that provision. It’s just that the how of the aid needs to be carefully thought about. Rather than a food ration perhaps a cash handout to purchase food with and so on. Rather than a housing ration financial support to purchase housing services to those who need it.

Another way to put this being that rights really are different - therefore it’s necessary to be highly selective about what is determined to be that right.