NHS may only accept new drugs if ‘judged to be a benefit to wider society’

NHS may only accept new drugs if ‘judged to be a benefit to wider society’

It only makes sense to look to the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) to see how it is working, because as anyone paying attention knows, socialized medicine (i.e., single payer) is the goal of Obamacare.

Well, the NHS is struggling. And there is even talk of privatization (but if you say it out loud, you are a racist). And with socialized medicine, rationing is inevitable.

Yesterday, Sarah Knapton of the Telegraph reported that a new proposal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) would only accept new drugs for the NHS if those drugs are deemed to be “a benefit to wider society.”

This is a matter of cost and resources, which as mentioned, the NHS is currently struggling to maintain.

Any talk of privatizing the NHS, you can imagine, results in Occupy-type rallies sponsored by socialists and unions. In fact, anyone who dares to whisper of putting the NHS into the capable hands of entrepreneurs is immediately referred to as a “bigot.”

NICE, the model used to develop Obamacare’s rationing (yes, rationing) committee, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), assures that the proposed  appraisal system would be applied “consistently, transparently, and equitably,” but there does not seem to really be a plan yet. 

Clearly, any thinking person would opine that pharmaceuticals that would benefit society as opposed to the individual must include drugs for the elderly (who are no longer working) and also, people with terminal conditions, or people with rare conditions that would not impact most of society. 

What other criteria could there possibly be to determine whether a drug would “benefit” the “wider society?” 

The indignant officials at NICE insist that their proposal will not hurt the elderly.

Knapton writes,

“Sources close to Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, insisted that the proposal was at an early stage and that he would intervene if the elderly were being discriminated against.”

A spokesman for the Department of Health said of those who opine that the elderly would necessarily be impacted:

“This is irresponsible scaremongering based on pure speculation about a consultation that has not even started. It is absolutely not true to say that older people will not get treatment because of their age.”

Healthcare as a “right”

The oft-stated reason used for justifying socialized medicine is that healthcare is a “human right.” Bioethicists (and socialists) in America have long tried to convince lawmakers to sell healthcare as a “human right.

This goes back to the days of FDR, when he tried to push his failed “Second Bill of Rights,” described at the Heritage Foundation as

“a broad vision of the role of government in making lives more secure through expanded government programs.”

One of FDR’s “rights” was “the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.”


If the right to health-care could be accepted, the leftists argue, then Americans would embrace Obamacare.

President Obama eventually tried this route, but his writers messed it up. He referred to health insurance as a human right, as discussed at Breitbart. But (tragically) nobody really seemed to notice. And sadly, other than the few paying attention, nobody really understood the heavy historical significance underlying President Obama’s declaration.

As an aside, this author sometimes feels that President Obama, who is indeed well-versed in the Constitution and absolutely knows better, is prodding, poking to see just how far he could pull the wool over the eyes of those who have become detached from America’s history. With help from the mainstream media and academia, he is doing a fine job.

Academia, particularly in the field of bioethics, largely considers rationing to be inevitable. Their dilemma is only how to speak of it in the public square, as discussed at the Shire Blog.

With this in mind, how does the NICE proposal reconcile with making healthcare decisions based on the individual’s health needs versus society?

Renee Nal

Renee Nal

Renee Nal is a co-founder of TavernKeepers.com, a news and political commentary site founded by former Glenn Beck interns. She is also the National Conservative Examiner. Renee is an associate producer for Trevor Loudon's political documentary, 'The Enemies Within.'


For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.