Yes, positive rights are claims that someone can make against another -- I have a right to food, you must provide it for me, etc. In this case, I have a right to healthcare, you must provide it for me.

From wikipedia:

Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

"I am a citizen, you must hold (if you are the government) or fund (if you are a taxpayer) an election for me to vote in."

What's your feeling on that positive right? I've encountered people who argue against democracy, and I've encountered people who will re-word the right as stated above and then call it a negative right. I disagree with the former, and the latter only succeed in demonstrating that the difference between positive and negative rights is one of phrasing, and not of the right itself. Do you have a different take on the matter?

So all people have the right to have all people provide their material needs. Seems unworkable to me. Maybe it just works for parasites.