Lord Warner, the former Labour health minister, must be delighted with the reaction to his report proposing, among other things, a £10-a-month NHS "membership fee" and the imposition of £20-a-night "hotel" charges for hospital stays. An obscure report from an obscure right-wing thinktank, co-authored by an obscure and unelected politician, has resulted in a media splash beyond expectations. Why is this? The answer is that despite the criticism heaped upon his ideas (and upon him personally), Warner has posed an important question – "how much do we want to keep a health service publicly funded and free at the point of delivery?"

In fairness to Warner, his ideas are not that easily pigeonholed as right-wing dottiness. Indeed, much of the report is uncontentious mainstream stuff (community services, prevention, integrated care), ideas anathema to the political right (increasing inheritance task) or a public health specialist's dream (taxes on alcohol, tobacco, gambling and sugar). But it is his description of the NHS as "outdated, cosseted and unaffordable" that is crucial – a challenge to the dominant paradigm of the past 60 years.

Warner makes two assumptions. First that the austerity programme based upon reducing public spending is the only way to deal with the deficit, and secondly that the NHS of the future is only viable if people pay more towards the costs. His regressive NHS Poll Tax of £10 per person per month (regardless of income) is certainly an odd subscription alternative to a more straightforward increase in general taxation or national insurance contributions.

Warner estimates that the measures he proposes would raise around £6bn a year to plug the NHS funding gap but fails to mention other ways of raising many more times this amount. Nye Bevan famously said that "the religion of socialism is the language of priorities" and there were echoes of this in David Cameron's recent remark while responding to the flooding crisis – "Money," he declared, "is no object in this relief effort. Whatever money is needed, we will spend it." People will reasonably ask why this principle might not also hold good for the NHS.

As an alternative to Warner's menu of charges and co-payments we might consider: the official estimate (and almost certainly an underestimate) of annual uncollected tax is £32bn, yet HMRC is suffering staff cuts. Uncollected VAT alone accounts for around £10bn a year.

The Afghan war (hardly a successful venture) is estimated to have cost the UK around £37bn – a startling example of governments finding money when they choose.

A capital gains tax levy on the £200bn of wealth accumulated by the richest 1,000 people (yes individuals) in the UK since the financial crash would raise about £50bn.

The unwanted and botched NHS reorganisation has cost around £4bn, not much more than the amount lost to the exchequer by the under-valuation of the recent sale of Royal Mail.

Many other examples could be cited of misjudged priorities and wasteful expenditure. While the NHS is far from perfect in its use of resources, Warner surely sets up a false dichotomy in claiming that funding the NHS risks seriously damaging other important public services.

Hitherto, breaches of the principle of publicly funded healthcare free at the point of use (such as prescription charges) have been portrayed as regrettable but necessary aberrations. The importance of Warner's report is that he challenges the very principle underpinning the NHS. Although the membership charge of £10 a month might seem modest to many, it would hit those on low incomes hard and would, inevitably, be a rising annual charge.

Do we want to slide down this slippery slope towards charges, co-payments and dependence upon private medical insurance cover? The Scots and the Welsh would certainly not be coming along for the ride, and we can be sure that no sane political party will want to go to the people in 2015 offering a manifesto of co-payments for healthcare. Polls consistently find huge support for not only maintaining the current system of funding but also for extending it to social care. So it is a measure that is both unfair and unpopular.

However, what Warner has helped create is a "zombie policy" – currently politically dormant but waiting to be given the kiss of life in the future. The political dilemma is that while polls consistently show high support for retaining the current funding model for the NHS, the same polls show much less willingness to countenance higher taxes to pay for it. Warner has posed an important question and come up with the wrong answer, but can the electorate be persuaded to will the means as well as the ends?

Join the Guardian healthcare network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.