In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights, which guaranteed those things listed above. Winning the war, obviously, was a priority at the time, and FDR died before that ended, preventing him from ever getting to this. Truman attempted some form of this with his "Fair Deal," but with Republicans growing in power throughout the mid-late 40s and into the early 50s, he never had the political strength to carry it through and it was shelved.
It's obviously ambitious, and there have obviously been developments, both technological and societal, which would make so much of this difficult to practically enact. I'm not sitting here saying that it'd be easy or proposing some specific policies to do so. I'm merely pointing out that, at one time, leaders of this country had a vision for such things and had at least some constituency supporting them in this regard. The things listed above remain noble and necessary goals for a civilized and just society, even if achieving them presents challenges.
Until not terribly long ago I was naive enough to believe that most conservatives agreed about these goals in at least the broadest sense, with the disagreement being about how best to achieve them. Liberals believed doing so required a great deal of government intervention while conservatives, wary of large governmental expense and power, instead believed that the private sector would better deliver these things via markets. Those assumptions formed the basic domestic political debate which has animated American politics for the past 80-90 years or so.
It's apparent now that conservatives -- particularly those with some amount of wealth or power -- never actually believed any of that. They do not actually do not want a society that provides decent standards for everyone, and their central fear is that liberal policies will actually deliver them.
(h/t my friend Steve Treder, who voiced this basic sentiment on Facebook yesterday; he's a smart one).