Utilitarianism and Health Care

Last week Rob asked me this question in response to a post by me questioning the legitimacy of the claim that health care access is a right:

If you could prove that universal education and health care, regardless of being a right or not, created a healthier, better educated society from a utilitarian standpoint, would you still choose not to universalize education and health care in light of your moral position?

This question is more philosophical than economical so I will try and keep my answer in that realm.

Now, what I think Rob is really asking is do the ends justify the means. The means in this case would violate my moral principles, or at least radically diminish them to the point of non-existence, but would also accomplish the ends of attaining the best for the most.

My endorsement for capitalism is two-fold: it is the most efficient and effective economic system we know of and it is, in my opinion, the most moral system we know of. My basis for this assertion is that it, in the long run, capitalism facilitates the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people and consequently leads to the maximum number of benefits for those said people. Rob's question asks if the economic side of the capitalism argument is false, does the moral side still provide enough value that it should still be advocated?

As one can see (and I'm not writing anything new here), the economic virtues of capitalism directly stem from its moral virtues. By providing individuals with the maximum amount of choice possible, the maximum amount of optimal solutions to whatever problems that face a society have the best chance of being reached. Consequently, we have the largest chance of seeing our lives improve in two ways. Principally, we can follow whatever course of life we deem fit given the choices we are provided with. In a sense, we can say that capitalism is not in and of itself a moral system but an avenue for moral systems to be discovered (invented?), evolve, and compete. And materially, as mentioned before, we can reap the maximum benefits that these choices will inevitably lead to.

Where am I going with this? Maybe it is too much of a stretch, but I think that by eliminating the moral virtues of capitalism in a market as complex and varied as health care, we will by default eliminate the material benefits capitalism provides. Choice is so integral to health care because the market is so varied and complex in all of it demands. Capitalism is thus, by default, the optimal system, both morally and materially, to meet all of these demands.

The inevitable question then is is there a minimum limit of complexity or variation in consumer demand where a centralized approach is more appropriate than the free market model in achieving utilitarian ends? That's a question for another day (and I think the one the Rob is asking and have avoided answering). But I do not think a centralized approach is a plausible model for the our current health care system, and thus cannot answer the original question without basing it on what I think are false premises.

Education strikes me, at least initially, as the better area to look at this question through, I will try and answer that question at some point in the future.

(Note: My knowledge of utilitarianism is very limited, so if I mischaracterized anything about the philosophy forgive me and please correct in the comments section)