Sure, but my point is that guaranteeing a right to health care or education makes little philosophical sense. It’s childish to say that a) these things are good, and b) we want the government to do good things, so therefore c) everyone has a right to get good things from the government.

You're making it sound like a "right" is something you "get". Political philosophy typically defines a "right" as something that you have before the social contract and a good government provides assurances that your rights are supplied within their contract with the people.

To address your ordered list, steps A and B are completely wrong, these things aren't "good" nor do we "want" them. They are innate qualities of humans and thus governments must respect and uphold them.

> You're making it sound like a "right" is something you "get".

No, she is making it sound that way, not me.

One of Nussbaum’s tenets is “It is the task of governments to provide citizens with capabilities to flourish.” She also wants to “establish the capabilities as rights to which citizens, in all nations, are entitled.” One of these capabilities/rights is “Bodily health (being able to have good health, including reproductive health, and adequate nourishment and shelter).” Some of the others are even more unrealistic, such as the right to a “normal human lifespan”.

I don’t know how to interpret that other than as the right to get stuff from the government.

You say "childish" and "unrealistic" but such legal rights already exists. For example children have a right to education and the government has to see to it, in one way or other, that the child gets education (which could take the shape of public schools or funding, regulation and overseeing privately owned schools or some other arrangement). Similarly for other legal rights. a right in that sense means an especially strong claim that guides policy and is specified and updated through laws and regulations.