This seems inconsistent with how, if you are put in prison, the government is obligated to provide you with food and shelter at no cost to you. If you only have a right "to" life in your interpretation, could not the government say, you need to pay out of pocket for food and shelter, and if you can't afford it, it's your fault you're starving to death in a dungeon?

And given the potential savings, why don't more governments do exactly that?