You start off here with another strange utilitarian argument instead of arguing the crux of the issue which is the 'right to health'. I don't mean to be rude so I'll ask you to clarify, but it appears that you're arguing not that forced kidney transfers are somehow wrong, but just that because they can't achieve equality that they can't fulfil a marginal utility purpose.

Let's start with some core assumptions that I'm making because I'm trying to be as clear as possible here:

1. You accept a right to private property.
2. You accept a right to healthcare.

Assuming that I'm correct so far, let's look at what happens when Person A is sick and can't afford healthcare. If you accept that Person B has to provide for Person A via welfare, then you add a third rule:

3. A person with a deficit's rights can overrule the rights of a person with surplus.

If you accept this so far, then it's up to you to explain a rights-based argument why it is right to make this overrule apply to property rights, but not to the right to health.

Taking it to another level, let's say Persons C & D both have kidney failure, but Person C can afford dialysis and Person D cannot. Is it reasonable for Person D to demand to use Person C's dialysis machine, as this is simply a piece of material property and not a part of Person C's body?

How about people with prosthetic legs or arms? Is it reasonable for them to be asked to share? Let's say three people have a missing leg and there are only two prosthetic legs. In order to nullify your ridiculous utilitarian argument, it is perfectly legitimate to force the two people with the legs to share with the third such that all three have use of two legs 66% of the time. Is this reasonable?

If you don't support these suggestions but do support the redistribution of wealth, without being able to make a rights/ethics-based argument for it (i.e. an argument which doesn't pre-assume that we all accept the 'good' of utilitarianism) then I'm sorry, but that stinks of an inconsistant worldview.

Utilitarianism isn't an axiom which every debate begins by accepting. I, for one, don't agree with the premise that it's OK to kill a man to save two more, so marginal utility theory isn't particularly persuasive with me.

If you wish to refute my argument entirely, you need to be able to make an argument rooted in ethics rather than utility or practicality to explain why I can infringe upon anothers' right to property but not their right to free speech or health.