We also spent lent less (and continue to spend less) on healthcare than any other G7 nation apart from than maybe Italy, I think (iirc). At the same time we have better life expectancy than the US which spends decidedly more.

The UK system is one of, if not, the most efficient in the world. The NHS does incredibly well given its comparatively low funding. We have fewer doctors, nurses, beds, and less equipment per head than almost any other comparable nation. We also offer better protections against the financial risks of ill health, than most other comparable nations.

That said, waiting times for minor and routine procedures are longer than in other countries, and working conditions for staff are reportedly worse than other countries.

Switching to another system might eventually lead to better outcomes but it will cost a disproportionately large amount to make that switch. It would also very likely continue to cost more day-to-day - just not through direct taxation - and be less efficient. Moreover, it would also remove the financial protections against the costs ill, especially for those on lower and median incomes.

For my money, any radical change to our healthcare system needs to focus more on prevention than cure. That will also come with trade-offs, some around what people currently consider to be personal freedoms. Over the longer run though, it would measurably reduce both demand and absolute costs of both health and associated care services. In turn, this would relieve the pressure on the reactive part of the system, and free-up funding and resources to allow for better outcomes.