Sandy has a great post here that should be required reading for anyone who thinks government-provided health care is the way to go.
Basically, Nice, in the UK, is setting up guidelines for rationing health care. Their guidelines are going to put "First, Do No Harm" right into the shitter. If, in their considered opinion, you brought your ill health on yourself, you are going to be shit out of luck for getting treatment for that ill health. So, if you smoke, and get lung cancer, tough shit, no chemotherapy for you (unless, of course, you promise to quit smoking for the rest of your life). If you drink, and need a liver transplant, tough shit, nope, not happening (unless, of course, you promise to quit drinking for the rest of your life). If you're fat, and you need any kind of health care, fuggedaboutit (unless, of course, you promise to starve yourself and exercise like a hamster on speed for the rest of your life and somehow can manage to lose every one of those "excess" pounds you're carrying and keep them off for the rest of your life). And if you're poor and the quality of your life sucks, then obviously, you'd be better off dead, so why the hell should the government spend precious resources on your health, when there are so many other people out there who are so much more deserving than you?
I wonder if this is going to apply to everyone equally, or is it just going to be the working stiffs/poor people who are going to bear the brunt of these shitty-ass bioethical guidelines (do I even need to ask that question)? Is this going to apply to all the physically fat politicians, the smoking/drinking, drunk-driving politicians? After all, if Joe Schmoe who works for a living and has any of those behaviors can't get medical treatment because it's not cost effective (the cost of his medical care is more than what he will contribute to society), why should a politician who has proscribed behaviors be an exception to that rule?
If this is happening in the UK, with their National Health System, I don't even want to think about what would happen here in the good old US of A if we went to a national health care system subsidized by our taxes. Our government already wants to run our lives, for our "own good" (because everyone "knows" that big nanny government has our best interests at heart [and if you believe that, I have several bridges for sale]). I know that our health care system is a shambles now, but I have a sinking feeling that it would be so much worse if it became nationalized. Health is not a "one-size-fits-all" proposition, and trying to make it one may pave a very wide road to hell on the backs of those least able to fight for themselves, but just as deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And who is any government to decide the value of a person's life? Just because the government thinks an old, fat, disabled person must have a shitty life, and would be better off dead soonest, doesn't necessarily make it so (and I know whereof I speak, I'm old, fat, and disabled, and my life is far from shitty in quality. I like my life just fine, thank you very much and do the letters FO mean anything to you, Big-ass MF Nanny-State?).
If the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) Social Value Judgements is put into practice, well, that's not a world in which I want to live (and I realize, that because I don't live in the UK, I don't have to deal with it, but I don't think the citizens of the UK should have to deal with it either).
ETA: See the post here for an even better take on this whole mess (said much better than I ever could).