By the way, it might be worth commenting on the idea that health care is a merit good. As with any positive right, if we concede that a person has a right to health care, i.e., that they just ought to get the treatment they need to stay alive whether they can afford it or not, a corollary of that probably must be a right to coerce others to give up their property for ends which to which they would not rationally consent. This is ethically problematic. Still, the idea that it's just wrong for "society" (whatever that means) just to let a person whom medicine could save die because the person can't pay for the life-saving treatment does seem to have a certain force. If that were the question we're faced with, I would be ambivalent. I would have at least some qualms about rejecting the idea.
But that's not the question we're faced with. For if health care is a merit good, i.e., if people just should get it, that moral imperative presumably applies to all mankind. Not only Americans and West Europeans but Indians and Chinese and sub-Saharan Africans just should get the treatment they need. But it's clearly infeasible for us to guarantee a level of health care to all of humanity that is even close to that enjoyed by middle-class Americans. So treating health care as a merit good is not an option (unless we subscribe de facto to a wicked belief that Americans are some kind of superior race). The real conclusion of this argument is that there is a moral imperative to shrink government and open up trade and do everything we possibly can to achieve maximum growth in the world economy, so that in some not-too-distant future there will be enough resources that everyone's basic needs can be satisfied. Above all, we must open the borders, by far the most beneficent economic policy within the realm of possibility, compared to which the moral importance of all other economic policies put together is negligible. In the meantime, the more ruthlessly utilitarian we are in health care policy, the better. A person's life should be saved by medical processes if and only if the present value of the person's labor services over their remaining lifetime, net of the present value of their consumption needs, as attainable by medical procedures is greater than the present value of the costs of treatment. This should be the goal of policy as well as personal ethics (that is, if one can only be saved at exorbitant cost, one should go quietly and save African orphans with the money you save).