Some more thoughts...
Out of the following two options, which is more economically feasible for patients: doctors charging for each service, or the community contributing to his living? In the case of the latter, I suppose it would be considered public health care, as it the doctors are there for the benefit of society. This assumes that the political economy allows for all to contribute in some way. It also presupposes some measure of stability for the community and its political economy. All would contribute to his living (and certain services?). But it wouldn't make health care a right, except in so far as the doctor owes something in return for the living he has received from the community.
It would cover accidents and illnesses, but injuries that involve fault would require the guilty person to shoulder the burden of paying for the health care?
At the very lease it would require an emphasis on preventive health care, grounded in a truly healthy diet and fitness plan, and not the FDA's current recommendations.
How are other expenses to be paid for? (Tests, cost of supplies, drugs, and so on--everything else in a hospital besides the doctors?) Is the burden to be on those who need the treatment? Or should these expenses be spread out among the community as well?