Okay, honestly, I had thought this would not take nearly so much time to sort out our I wouldn't have commented. But since we're here:

Your position is that healthcare isn't a "privilege", correct? You decided to criticize Colby Hess for calling it a privilege--he was defining the word to mean a positive right, and you were, someone peculiarly, attacking him for thinking it is not a basic right.

Here: https://amberbobamber-43268.medium.com/yeah-youre-right-d6d5f944a7e7

you said " I don't understand how healthcare is a "privilege."" and "How is that NOT a basic right?"

even though Colby said, " I guess I consider "positive rights" to be "privileges." ...calling them "privileges," ... doesn't mean you shouldn't have them."

There is no "basic right" that he was talking about. Only positive and negative, and he's calling positive "privileges". You object and say you don't understand.

But you yourself have apparently used the exact same terminology (implicitly) in the context of white privilege, which is how you tagged this article you wrote: https://medium.com/i-was-a-teenage-bad-girl/the-perks-of-being-a-white-woman-in-the-us-82a5aab12989

While listing the perks you've experienced by virtue of being a white woman in the U.S. (at least in part, at least in your estimation), you said, "Do I want my “privileges” to end so that society is “fairer”? Also no. Not being killed by a police officer should be a ubiquitous right for every single American"

So you got it then, didn't you?

There's a sense of the word "privilege" which covers basic rights, and you seemed to accept using that way at least in quotes.

So I just don't see how you could have any significant problem understanding Colby Hess' classification of health care as a type of privilege.

I imagined that I'd drop a couple words, you'd recall that you actually knew this usage just fine, and would say something relevant (e.g. "calling either a lack of healthcare or targeting of police violence a 'privilege' diminishes the gravity of the offenses and incorrectly suggests that these are things to be earned rather than basic rights everyone should expect and should receive"). Then it's clear that your previous (implicit) position is updated to a new more stringently moral one, justifying your objection to Colby's language.

I certainly did not expect this long tussle.

Regardless, the only reason I commented is that it seemed like you were at that point torpedoing the prospects for a thoughtful exchange of ideas which Colby was offering. And I thought maybe you would want to reconsider.