As whiskeryron points out, it is a matter of (collective) choice as to what type and quality of government health service is/becomes available. There is the matter of priorities, between cars, TVs, health, etc. as to where/how individuals spend their money. There is also the matter of where governments spend the public's money - for example, is it better spent on armaments and adventures in distant lands than on better organising the various systems (at the cost of investment in that effort/transition), including the health service, or should there be a rethink as to whether the UK should become rather less concentrated on its militarism ? Governments in the Western World are by definition service providers: The population demands a lot of their governments, they provide it and charge for it through taxation. If/when governments are there to serve the nation then it is the nation which is to make the choices, and in a democracy the nation chooses through elections.
Elections in the UK and elsewhere operate on a choice by the majority, which can (some months or a year or two later) be seen resulting in everybody being dissatisfied. Churchill was quoted as saying (effectively or actually) that democracy is a lousy form of government but it happens to be the best type we have. Democracy functions best when the public is truly well informed (i.e. actively explores the issues factually, including genuinely considering the merits of different/opposing views) and exercises its choice based on that. Quite apart from abstentions, there are reasons to doubt that everyone takes a well reasoned and balanced view of the choices.