Whenever I see this stuff, my main reaction is "why bother?"

The NHS is less efficient than some insurance-based systems AND some tax-based ones.

The differences are marginal.

None of them are for profit.

You'd need this massive, expensive change, but for what?

The thing you get from most global health systems' comparisons is basically that the United States is the outlier. Every other wealthy state does some variation of universal healthcare, paid for via compulsory contributions (tax or insurance) to a state or para-state non-profit.

They all work, more or less, with very minor differences in efficiency, which don't especially correlate to what type of compulsory contribution is made or whether the healthcare provider is the state or a para-state non-profit.

And people want to take their existing system and, at great expense, rip up its administrative structures, design new structures in the hope they get a 0.5% bump in productivity? Why the hell would you?

At least when they were pushing the US-model it made some sort of sense: they were ghouls, they liked money, they thought taking money off the sick seemed like a nice way to make money. This? No idea what it's for.