The point is that throwing ever more money at a bottomless pit isn't a solution. Hence there must be changes, not just more money.
Another issue is that the NHS is a religion. It is blasphemous to suggest departing from free-of-charge delivery or private involvement (although that's already what we have). Even suggesting "reform" is badly received.
The reason is that private intervention is tricky. The US has a fully private healthcare system, and as you can see from this post, it's shit.
I'm from the US so excuse any oversimplifications, but over the past couple decades I've noticed a trend of US-ification in British politics. I would be careful with looking to greener pastures.
The thing is that right next to the UK is France, which I know.
The French system is based on a mandatory health insurance, now with mandatory private health insurance in addition to that.
GPs and most health professionals are private practices that set up shop like a, say, lawyer would and there is big private sector involvement up to hospital level.
I think there are many similar examples throughout the world.
This is partly why I find this focus on the US system in the UK puzzling. My best guess is that it is used as a scarecrow by those opposed to any changes to the NHS.
Another issue is that the NHS is a religion. It is blasphemous to suggest departing from free-of-charge delivery or private involvement (although that's already what we have). Even suggesting "reform" is badly received.