The Health and Social Care Bill is getting an awful lot of negative comments from the Labour party so many in fact I am wondering if they've bothered to read the bill. Lets not forget it was the Labour party's Health Spokesman Andy Burnham said of the government's spending on the NHS "It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms". So Labour propose to have the National Health Service at heart but they says its "irresponsible" to keep increasing funding.
They say the Health and Social Care bill is wrong but that bill reduces bureaucracy and form filling by the next election in fiscal terms it will of saved £5,195,000,000. which will be "money that will be reinvested into services for patients". Not my words they're from the Secretary of State. So more money from the government going into patient care over and above what the last government delivered without the "irresponsible" spending increases of this government.
The Department of Health confirm that money could fund 40,000 extra nurses, 17,000 extra doctors or over 11,000 extra senior doctors every year. The majority of the savings would come from a significant reduction in bureaucracy following the abolition of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, and a reduction in management staff by an estimated 24,500 posts. The changes would pay for themselves by 2012/13 and the subsequent savings would give the NHS a stable financial basis for the future.
The bill will also put GPs at he heart of their patients care but as Lib Dem Minister Paul Burstow said "We’re updating the NHS for the 21st Century by making it more personal and more local. The NHS will always be free at the point of use and fair to all who need it. By trusting patients and carers to make the best choices we will make the NHS focus on delivering high quality and safe care."
So while Andrew Lansley is cutting pen pushers and replacing them with doctors and nurses Labour's Andy Burnham opposes the increased investment in the National Health Service. He opposes reducing bureaucracy as laid down in the Health and Social Care bill and by doing so therefore opposes the freeing up enough money to really invest in front line health care, although he'll probably try to have his cake and eat it.
Out of the two I believe Mr Lansley is on the right course. The scaremongering of the Labour party in recent days is a disgrace not only to the office they hold but to the people in the country as well. Will Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband apologise when in three months time when the NHS is still there.
Mr Miliband says there are "three months to save the NHS". No Ed the NHS is safe in Andrew Lansley's hands, free at the point of delivery for all. With increased investment which you oppose, with increases in doctors and nurses paid for by cutting pen pushers which you oppose. And Mr Miliband the NHS will be around for a lot longer than you will be Labour leader.