Business lobby opposes tax rise to fix health issues
Faced with overwhelming opposition from the Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians, the government has decided it will rai부천출장샵se taxes to pay for its flagship healthcare reform package.
It wants to scrap the health reforms, cut payments and replace the public sector with a fee-for-service system, leaving just seven NHS trusts to run the rest of the health service.
However, lobby groups believe the bill would increase the cost of care, drive up NHS spending and potentially hit vulnerable patients with huge additional bills.
This week’s Health Select Committee, due to chair a key debate later this month, will decide what to do실시간카지노 about the cuts, which aim to save almost £1 billion over the next Parliament. The government says that would cost £1.4 billion over the next Parliament, which would be paid for by cutting the National Insurance premium by more than a third.
At the Royal S속초안마ociety’s annual meeting in February, the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, hinted there could be a “clarification” of the bill. The committee will decide on January 21 whether to accept that the consultation papers submitted to the government show the cuts would hit patients.
Lansley said the consultation on the bill had not taken place and that the consultation paper had been submitted to him by a senior official in the Department of Health, which is responsible for the NHS.
But the Royal Society said that the government was not taking into account the impact that the cuts would have on its health work.
The medical organisation said that, until recently, it had seen no evidence the “excess” health funding would impact on patients and “not yet see that impact”.
It told the Health Select Committee, in a motion submitted to the committee’s chair, that the impact of a public sector model “has only been seen to be limited on relatively poor families in which no one is employed, where there are only two NHS trusts, and where there are very few patients and services are limited in what is available”.
The motion argues: “The reduction in funding and investment of government will see patients affected more than they are currently facing. It will also result in the provision of services on a worse scale and at a higher cost of care, while more patients end up waiting longer for specialist health services.”
It also cites research commissioned by the Royal Society which has found that it would cost £150 million more per year to run its own NHS to provide health care to the same number o