First of all, I think Luciana says this far more eloquently than me, so read her answer first and then come back here.
Okay, now I've almost definitely said something along those lines, so I figure I should defend my stance. In the United States founding documents, there are two quotes that stand out to me:
"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…"
"...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Are we really protecting our citizens and their right to life if they're starving or frozen because they don't have somewhere to stay? Sure, it's not realistic that we really can feed and house everyone that struggles... but it's a self-determined purpose of our government to try to protect those people, if you ask me. Their right to life is severely limited if we don't care for basic needs. Additionally, they are not free to exercise liberty or pursue happiness if their basic needs are not met. The same applies to healthcare. If current wages for a full-time employee can't cover living expenses, much less health care or anything else, then it seems like we're failing somewhere. So we should do our very best to protect those people, or else we are denying them the very things that were defined as unalienable rights. That seems... problematic.
I agree with your statement that you don't have the right to force someone to provide you with goods and services. But the government isn't quite the same thing as a private entity with specific private property rights. By creating policies that "promote the general welfare," we are fulfilling our purpose as outlined in the Constitution and taking care of constituents. We aren't violating anyone's rights. If anything, we're actually enabling more people to access their rights. In my view, we don't even need to increase taxes to get there, we just need to reevaluate our budget (properly, instead of getting into a standoff and being stubborn like a bunch of children and then just shutting down the government for an entire month.)
I also wonder, who decided to monetize those things in the first place? I have separate feelings about how stupid it is for someone to capitalize on something that used to be a shared resource, especially by overcharging and taking advantage of other people for personal gain... I mean, let's get real: private ownership of basic necessities like water and shelter is a human construct. We are the ones that made it all about money. In other words, we took what used to be free and accessible (land, water, shelter) and decided we cared more about greed and money than about basic humanity. We even criminalize the people who try to make their own shelter because it's on "our land." Which, in itself is cruel and not very sensible, considering the history of the land in the first place. We stole it and made it monetized, and if that's not the dumbest thing ever...
And that's what it comes down to for me. Do we prioritize money and property, both fundamentally useless human constructs (if/when crap hits the fan, neither of these things will have any meaning), or do we prioritize human life and decency? Easy answer.
Not everything falls under that umbrella though... I don't actually think education, cell phones, public transit, the Internet, etc. fall under the same category, because those are not necessary for human life or liberty. We've made access to those things easier, which is really excellent. I do think that the more public goods there are, the better a country is - it's better serving its citizens. But, those public goods are not technically part of its responsibility. These kinds of things are more complicated than just "we should give every person free EVERYTHING!" because that isn't the case, and it isn't sustainable. But we do have a responsibility as a country to protect the lives and welfare of our citizens, and food, shelter, and affordable health care access are the first places to start.
I don't think you actually disagree with that idea, but rather you disagree with how it should be implemented. I think I'm thinking more on a theoretical plane (this is something we should be doing, this should be an aim of government) and you are likely thinking more along the lines of how realistic the whole thing is (sure, maybe we should do this, but we won't because...) It doesn't seem likely that you think people should starve to death, rather, we simply discuss the topic in different ways, and disagree on how the problem should be approached. And that's perfectly alright. In fact, I'm glad you made me think about this.