Absolutely right? No, I think you're off track there. I could go with "on balance, in utilitarian terms, of overall benefit and therefore acceptable", but "absolutely right" it most certainly is not.
When you take money away from someone, you are effectively taking away the time that person spent earning that money. If you earn X dollars an hour, and I take X dollars from you, I am taking away an hour of your life. There is no moral difference whatsoever between doing this and forcing you to spend an hour working for me. But for some reason, we are more squeamish about "forced labour" than we are about "forced payments". Both are, in fact, absolutely wrong.
However... if that X dollars I am taking away from you results in another person living more than one hour longer, from a pure first-order utilitarian perspective, on balance I am doing good in the world.
However... there are second-order effects that need to be taken into account; and the nature and strength of these effects are what the whole debate is all about:
- Does taking money away from you discourage you from working as hard as they otherwise would, so my confiscation of X leads to >X loss?
- Does the fact that the transfer is forcible rather than voluntary make you extremely unhappy (or "create additional negative utility" - humans being notoriously loss-averse)?
- On the other hand, does extending the other person's life allow them to spend their time productively, creating >X of value?
- Does this create some kind of multiplier effect that eventually circles round and ends up indirectly compensating you for some or all of what I've taken?
I'm sure a few minutes of thought will come up with a whole load of other second- and third-order effects that play into the essential calculus; and these will be shifting constantly as conditions and attitudes change.
My point is that, while after intensive debate and discussion we might all come around to the view that forced payment for the health care of other adults is morally permissible, we can NEVER say that it is "absolutely right". That is the language of ideological blindness, not reason.