But since I'm sure you'll labor this point, we are a party to the UN declaration of Human Rights, and that is indeed the law of the land per the Constitution. You are aware of that, right?
A tiny technicality: The UN Declaration of Human Rights was passed by the UN as a binding resolution, but it requires the ratification of the US Congress before it becomes domestic law. Unfortunately, Congress never ratified it, seeing it as an infringement of our sovereign rights (or some such), so it's
not (sadly) the law of the land. However, as a binding resolution, all members of the UN are
required to ratify it and to adopt laws that embody the principles of the DoHR, so
technically, the US is in direct violation of the terms of its membership by failing to ratify and enact a duly passed binding resolution. This could, in principal, expose us to sanctions, but given our veto power, that's highly unlikely. (Isn't that
convenient?)
The big irony is that America helped push through the DoHR, and then promptly chose not to ratify it when it passed. Another irony is that the US happily invokes human rights violations under DoHR against other countries even though it is equally guilty under a duly ratified international treaty (its decision to join the UN) for deliberately failing to ratify and enact DoHR. In fact, failing to ratify and enact DoHR is unconstutional, because by ratifying our membership in the UN, Congress made UN bylaws officially binding under the Constitution - including the part about ratifying and enacting binding resolutions.
Regardless of those technicalities, from a practical perspective, a healthy population benefits
everyone, so even the most heartless, "self-interested" person should want to promote the public health if for no other reason than that it benefits them in the long run to do so. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, many conservatives don't seem to take a "long run" view of things; it's all about short-term profits, even if the long-term costs far exceed those profits.