Real terms funding has not been cut. It increased though every year of the coalition government (albeit, sometimes by very little), when pretty much everything else was being cut strongly. The first real-terms cut since 1997 came after Covid when a lot of emergency funding reduced.
The issue here is demographics. Healthcare needs way more than real-terms increase to account for people's longer lives, aging population, and increased expectations.
Our political system has shown itself unwilling to meet that through taxation (under either main party). Why? Because the people won't vote for it.
Transitioning to more of an insurance-based model opens up a whole new funding stream from people who will vote against a party promising to raise taxes significantly, but are happy to pay more for their own healthcare, taking pressure off the public-financed part.
Other Western insurance-based models rank extremely well. The two countries that often rank worst are the UK and US, mainly (I think) because minds are closed in both places about better ways to run their systems.
As for the profit bit: we rely on a profit-driven system to feed us, and would die in weeks if it stopped. Unless you think a nationalised food production and distribution system would be better and cheaper, I think it's worth examining the assumption that a mixed system with significantly more private involvement couldn't improve healthcare. It works well in dozens of countries. The US is the outlier and we don't have to pick them as our model.