Given that the FT was no particular friend of Labour, which it opposed in the coming election this assessment of the NHS performance can hardly be considered biased. Not mentioned by either the FT or of course  the Times is that the Right's endlessly repeated stories of years' long NHS wait lists we're accurate-so far as they go. There were indeed two year waits , under the tories. Which were considered  irrefutable evidence that "socialized mediciine" was a failure. Whereas what they proved was that socialized medicine was a failure when administered by a government which wanted it to be a failure.

In fact that final sentence could have read

can now sometimes wait months for specialists care in comparison to the wait of years under Margaret Thatcher

Or could have read 

..can now sometimes wait months  for specialist care which is available immediately on the private market  at rates far below those in the US because of the competition provided by the UK's ".public option".    

Provided with an opportunity to choose from an array of opportunities to counter the misleading implication that the wait of "months" was evidence that the NHS was an example of the sort of  failed government program which could be expected of Obamacare,  the Times dodged  them all in favor of a statement that can only be  considered  factually correct under the most liberal interpretation of that term.