The term "rights" means different things in different places. In the realm of the Constitution, it almost exclusively refers to limits of the (Federal!) Govern

The term "rights" means different things in different places. In the realm of the Constitution, it almost exclusively refers to limits of the (Federal!) Government. In terms of a contract or in modern welfare state entitlements (such as Social Security), "rights" indeed refer to benefits owed. Kimmel wasn't referring to the Federalist Papers when he made his speech; it was an informal humanitarian modern-welfare-state understanding of "rights". I agree that there should probably be some limit to the amount an insurance company needs to fulfill claims, otherwise our premiums are likewise unbounded. The NHS and Canadian health systems appear to have rate limiting aspects (perhaps unintended) that have the outcome of bounding costs.