Definitely both. There should be a government-funded option for those who GENUINELY cannot afford private insurance, and a wide range of private options. Naturally, the private healthcare should be of a superior quality. Also, under this system, National Insurance for those who opt out of the scheme would have to be lower, but not zero, since it still has to be tax-subsidised.

oh my. a michael moore film? that guy is a goober. He is a progressive leftists that skews anything to his political standard. If it was up to him the rich would pay 70% to more of their income to the Federal Government and the money would get distributed to many people that dont want to work.

The US constitution does not guarantee the right to health. It only guarantees the pursuit of health (in the form of happiness, I would assume most people would be happy if they were healthy). And that, quite frankly, makes the most sense, after all, how are you going to guarantee somebody, who is dying of cancer, that they will live just as long as somebody of the same age, who is perfectly healthy. And in the US, EVERYBODY gets treated for their illnesses. Don't believe me? Cut off a finger and walk into an Emergency room, they will treat you whether you have money or not.

Public and make it a % of the income?

In what fantasy world is that a good idea? Who pays for it? You think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until the government gets control of it, they will KILL it. If not by making it next to impossible to comply with regulations, then they will do so by overpaying a bunch of people to sit around and do nothing. Doctors will be in short supply because they will not get paid enough to make their time spent in college worth the pay out. Let's not forget about R&D, the government will not pay enough for research, as a result we will get fewer life saving drugs. The rich will go to countries where they can get real healthcare, while the poor get shafted. Socialized medical programs do not work. The UK has already made steps to move away from their socialized program because it does not work. Why would anybody in their right mind want something that has been a proven failure?

we pay taxes

For the U.S. (The only country I can really speak on), a mixture of both would be best. A strong audit system to monitor costs is also necessary.

It is working for some countries.  Like you state yourself maybe the eductation should not be that expensive. The way it is now is everything but good. Their is a reason why USA is ranked 37 of the world based on the health care system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html   Maybe a nice read.

Socialised medical programs do work, including the NHS. The majority of the British people actually approve of the NHS and want it to continue.

I'll go with the both idea. I've always liked the idea of a two-tiered healthcare system. Seems perfect to me. Everyone gets their basic health care needs met, but those with the money who are willing to pay can get extra service, jump to the top of waiting lists, etc.

The benefit of private health care was shown when my dad needed knee surgery recently. We're Canadian and my dad was told it would be 6-8 months before he would be able to get knee surgery. This wasn't an option since he was in pain all the time and couldn't sleep at night. Well since my dad did well in business and has the money, he opted to go to the USA for his surgery. Got it done 4 days later in Cleveland, Ohio. Set him back around $10,000 but that seems well worth the cost to save himself 8 months of suffering and waiting.