Any response to my question about whether the universal health cover is seen as a desirable and achievable goal by critics of the proposed reforms? Or is thta something they think America should get along without?

In this context the NHS is a red herring since, for better ore worse, that's not what's on the table. (I'd be inclined to say "for worse" along with the overwhelming number of people who actually use it, and know what they are talking about, but then we would, since we know what they are talking about. However it's not for export, and of course there are a host of other ways of organising universal health care in operaqtion around the world.)
..........................

As for that Wall Street Journal editorial, it doesn't really stand up too well: "However, there's an ocean of difference between coverage decisions made under millions of voluntary private contracts and rationing via government." I can't see why there is any particular significant difference, and insofar as there is, I'd far sooner trust the NHS way of doing it than be at the mercy of private insurance companies.