I believe the NHS should be free at the point of use for all eligible UK citizens, I also believe that if you have an income that can afford you the luxury of private health care and education then you should go private thus alleviating the burden on the hard pressed services.
I don't see it as queue jumping I see it as personal choice, I do have problems with those that have all the benefits of the NHS but keep their tax liabilities to a strict minimum using means to pay as little as they can via offshore tax haven. The child is blameless but the mother is not, she kind of started the hoo haa, and rightly or wrongly as folk see it this will get people's hackles up.
Nobody knows what her financial and tax arrangements are. The idea though that the wealthy who will pay more in are somehow then morally obliged to use less of the public services their money helps support makes me smile somewhat.
I think the real question is not 'is she entitled?' but more 'Does she have a moral responsibility?'
I know if it was within my means to pay for my child's care I would do that rather than take money from the state even if I was entitled. I wouldn't feel right about taking the money when it meant someone else might have to do without. But that would be down to my morals.
In the case of Harvey no one is saying that he is not entitled to the help he gets but the question really is morally should his parents fund his expenses when they don't have to?
I know from personal experience that some children with disabilities have to fight for this type of treatment - My own nephew has autism and when he had to go to 'big school' my sister had to fight for two years for him to get transport as he was deemed 'well enough' to get a public train over 20 miles by himself.
If I need an operation and can pay for it privately then I would do so rather than put extra strain on the NHS. I would rather pay that worry that I had taken the opportunity from someone worse off than myself.
When you are giving the goverment 45% of your earnings that's the time to come back and tell us all that you will also also educate all your children privately and pay for private medical services then I will indeed be very impressed. Not only with your moral stance but also the millions you would need to earn to pay for it.
I think the real question is not 'is she entitled?' but more 'Does she have a moral responsibility?'
I know if it was within my means to pay for my child's care I would do that rather than take money from the state even if I was entitled. I wouldn't feel right about taking the money when it meant someone else might have to do without. But that would be down to my morals.
In the case of Harvey no one is saying that he is not entitled to the help he gets but the question really is morally should his parents fund his expenses when they don't have to?
I know from personal experience that some children with disabilities have to fight for this type of treatment - My own nephew has autism and when he had to go to 'big school' my sister had to fight for two years for him to get transport as he was deemed 'well enough' to get a public train over 20 miles by himself.
If I need an operation and can pay for it privately then I would do so rather than put extra strain on the NHS. I would rather pay that worry that I had taken the opportunity from someone worse off than myself.
Difference is Harvey doesn't just have autism, he has much more than that and is not capable of getting public transport and needs constant care.
As for going private that is up to you. Even the Royal family use NHS hospitals (Sophie Wessex gave birth in one). The NHS is for everyone not just those that can't afford private healthcare.
Difference is Harvey doesn't just have autism, he has much more than that and is not capable of getting public transport and needs constant care.
As for going private that is up to you. Even the Royal family use NHS hospitals (Sophie Wessex gave birth in one). The NHS is for everyone not just those that can't afford private healthcare.
Sophie will have gone private in a NHS hospital. It is where majority of private health care is carried out. Ie. She will have paid for consultant /nurses/private room etc.
This whole argument with Katie is between the entitlement generation and the self sufficient generation. No way would a single person in top 1% in 1950's have even considered claiming state aid. They knew what the welfare state was for. Mind you nobody with Katie underclass background would be in top 1%.
Sophie will have gone private in a NHS hospital. It is where majority of private health care is carried out. Ie. She will have paid for consultant /nurses/private room etc.
This whole argument with Katie is between the entitlement generation and the self sufficient generation. No way would a single person in top 1% in 1950's have even considered claiming state aid. They knew what the welfare state was for. Mind you nobody with Katie underclass background would be in top 1%.
And in the 1950's a child like Harvey would have been locked away in residential care years ago
When you are giving the goverment 45% of your earnings that's the time to come back and tell us all that you will also also educate all your children privately and pay for private medical services then I will indeed be very impressed. Not only with your moral stance but also the millions you would need to earn to pay for it.
Excatly, I would also in her position refuse to stump up cash for something I opposed and had taken out of my hands. She didn't want her son to move schools and travel so far so why shod she or any of the other parents end up out of pocket as a result of the councils decisions.
I think the real question is not 'is she entitled?' but more 'Does she have a moral responsibility?'
I know if it was within my means to pay for my child's care I would do that rather than take money from the state even if I was entitled. I wouldn't feel right about taking the money when it meant someone else might have to do without. But that would be down to my morals.
In the case of Harvey no one is saying that he is not entitled to the help he gets but the question really is morally should his parents fund his expenses when they don't have to?
I know from personal experience that some children with disabilities have to fight for this type of treatment - My own nephew has autism and when he had to go to 'big school' my sister had to fight for two years for him to get transport as he was deemed 'well enough' to get a public train over 20 miles by himself.
If I need an operation and can pay for it privately then I would do so rather than put extra strain on the NHS. I would rather pay that worry that I had taken the opportunity from someone worse off than myself.
I agree with this. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. We have free prescriptions in Scotland. I COULD go and see my gp and get a prescription for hay fever remedies. But I don't. I don't believe its a good use of resources both in cost of the medication and doctors time. If I was worth the money KP is worth, I couldn't bring myself to claim such a benefit knowing many other families all over the country are struggling to get by on a day to day basis. I don't pay tax to sit and count my P60 and think how much I can get back out of it, that's not the point for me. The point for me is to pay into a system that helps those in need.
When you are giving the goverment 45% of your earnings that's the time to come back and tell us all that you will also also educate all your children privately and pay for private medical services then I will indeed be very impressed. Not only with your moral stance but also the millions you would need to earn to pay for it.
My husband is in the higher tax bracket. We would gladly pay for any services we could fund ourselves to allow resources to be better spent on those not in a position to do so.
My husband is in the higher tax bracket. We would gladly pay for any services we could fund ourselves to allow resources to be better spent on those not in a position to do so.
Excellent, good for you. I assume your husband is in a more stable employment than KP tho.
My husband is in the higher tax bracket. We would gladly pay for any services we could fund ourselves to allow resources to be better spent on those not in a position to do so.
But you don't have to that's your choice, if you choose to pay a huge amount of tax then don't both claiming what you have paid for when you need it, who is the fool for paying twice.;-)
And in the 1950's a child like Harvey would have been locked away in residential care years ago
I can assure you not. My brother was born with both physical and mental disability in mid 50's and he was not placed in care. It is a complete re writing of history and shameful to cast my parents generation in such a light. There weren't the handouts to support a disabled child but parents saw a child as their responsibility. The fact that they just got on with it is testament to the label self sufficient generation. There were many parents just like mine.
It was a strain on families with disabled child and the assistance to those in need in the following decades is totally right. BUT when it becomes a multi millionaire claiming state aid the system is broken. Harvey taxi fare is no respite care for another family who don't have the luxury of a nanny. Spare your concerns for that family struggling with the day to day care. I know what this means I grew up with it.
But you don't have to that's your choice, if you choose to pay a huge amount of tax then don't both claiming what you have paid for when you need it, who is the fool for paying twice.;-)
I don't see it as being foolish. Paying tax is a fact of life. It's something that I see as doing to help others who are not in the same position as ourselves. Unfortunately that help is not distributed properly - and at a both ends of the scale, rich people like KP and poor people who claim benefits all their lives as a lifestyle choice. As a result too many people are suffering e.g. the school which Harvey originally attended is closed and the whole community are the losers.
The blame lies squarely with the government and not KP .
Absolutely. Just to clarify, my comments are directed at a system that allows such a situation to happen, not the people who do what the system entitles them to do.
I can assure you not. My brother was born with both physical and mental disability in mid 50's and he was not placed in care. It is a complete re writing of history and shameful to cast my parents generation in such a light. There weren't the handouts to support a disabled child but parents saw a child as their responsibility. The fact that they just got on with it is testament to the label self sufficient generation. There were many parents just like mine.
It was a strain on families with disabled child and the assistance to those in need in the following decades is totally right. BUT when it becomes a multi millionaire claiming state aid the system is broken. Harvey taxi fare is no respite care for another family who don't have the luxury of a nanny. Spare your concerns for that family struggling with the day to day care. I know what this means I grew up with it.
If the system is broken then surely the remedy lies with government ? Or are you actually saying that our precarious NHS is totally dependent upon the wealthy refusing to use the facilities that they paid the most into ? It's not going to happen . The wealthy will move out of the UK , or be so disincentiveised and disinclined to create wealth and jobs that the economy would suffer and the NHS.
I agree with this. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. We have free prescriptions in Scotland. I COULD go and see my gp and get a prescription for hay fever remedies. But I don't. I don't believe its a good use of resources both in cost of the medication and doctors time. If I was worth the money KP is worth, I couldn't bring myself to claim such a benefit knowing many other families all over the country are struggling to get by on a day to day basis. I don't pay tax to sit and count my P60 and think how much I can get back out of it, that's not the point for me. The point for me is to pay into a system that helps those in need.
I agree, and I suppose that's down to an individuals way of thinking, I would like to think that I would modify my lifestyle ( a few less horses, a smaller mansion, whatever and meet those costs myself, freeing up 10's of thousands in the hope that some of hat money could go toward those many thousands out there who are means tested, the vulnerable and elderly, those that are having scant home input cut even further and the elderly that literally can not afford to have the heating on....I acknowledge this is not Price's responsibility and I am not laying the problem's and lack of desperately needed support at her door and neither would I want to see Harvey's rights to education denied.................I think it is a personal issue...and there quite likely is a fair few wealthy people out there who choose not take everything they or their child are entitled to.
Also have to agree about the tax angle.....a millionaire in the higher tax bracket is extremely likely to have the money to pay people to avoid paying anything near that much and I agree that all things being relative, the person working in Tesco is likely paying more tax.
I agree, and I suppose that's down to an individuals way of thinking, I would like to think that I would modify my lifestyle ( a few less horses, a smaller mansion, whatever and meet those costs myself, freeing up 10's of thousands in the hope that some of hat money could go toward those many thousands out there who are means tested, the vulnerable and elderly, those that are having scant home input cut even further and the elderly that literally can not afford to have the heating on....I acknowledge this is not Price's responsibility and I am not laying the problem's and lack of desperately needed support at her door and neither would I want to see Harvey's rights to education denied.................I think it is a personal issue...and there quite likely is a fair few wealthy people out there who choose not take everything they or their child are entitled to.
Also have to agree about the tax angle.....a millionaire in the higher tax bracket is extremely likely to have the money to pay people to avoid paying anything near that much and I agree that all things being relative, the person working in Tesco is likely paying more tax.
I agree with this. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. We have free prescriptions in Scotland. I COULD go and see my gp and get a prescription for hay fever remedies. But I don't. I don't believe its a good use of resources both in cost of the medication and doctors time. If I was worth the money KP is worth, I couldn't bring myself to claim such a benefit knowing many other families all over the country are struggling to get by on a day to day basis. I don't pay tax to sit and count my P60 and think how much I can get back out of it, that's not the point for me. The point for me is to pay into a system that helps those in need.
When you are giving the goverment 45% of your earnings that's the time to come back and tell us all that you will also also educate all your children privately and pay for private medical services then I will indeed be very impressed. Not only with your moral stance but also the millions you would need to earn to pay for it.
I don't have a problem with KP's current situation.
The real problem for parents with severely disabled children and those with learning disabilities is when their child leaves Education at 18. From what I can gather the support network ends and parents are left to cope by themselves with no respite or anything. Of course this won't effect parents who are well of because they can afford to pay for respite and residential stay. But for families on low income it is impossible. I would like the government to give more help to post 18 adults who have a disability.
I think Katie Price is doing nothing wrong. First off the local authority are NOT paying £1000 a day to transport Harvey to school. This is a figure she estimated it would cost her to do so herself when she was caught on the spot.
If there was a school close by Which could cope with his very complex needs, I am sure she would be happy to transport him herself. She is a dedicated Mother and has chosen to bring him up as part of the family and not put him into residential care. If she had it would cost the local authority hundreds of thousands of pounds every year of his life.
There are parents all over the country who have special needs kids and they all get their transport to school provided. Many of these are very wealthy but as their children will have statements of Educational Needs and its specified in those statements which schools they should attend it is up to the LA to fund it.
I for one, think she has been a great Mum to Harvey and I wish people would leave her alone. It's a pity Harvey's Dad doesn't step up and do his bit too.
Comments
Nobody knows what her financial and tax arrangements are. The idea though that the wealthy who will pay more in are somehow then morally obliged to use less of the public services their money helps support makes me smile somewhat.
When you are giving the goverment 45% of your earnings that's the time to come back and tell us all that you will also also educate all your children privately and pay for private medical services then I will indeed be very impressed. Not only with your moral stance but also the millions you would need to earn to pay for it.
Difference is Harvey doesn't just have autism, he has much more than that and is not capable of getting public transport and needs constant care.
As for going private that is up to you. Even the Royal family use NHS hospitals (Sophie Wessex gave birth in one). The NHS is for everyone not just those that can't afford private healthcare.
The taxi and nurse are for the disabled child.
Sophie will have gone private in a NHS hospital. It is where majority of private health care is carried out. Ie. She will have paid for consultant /nurses/private room etc.
This whole argument with Katie is between the entitlement generation and the self sufficient generation. No way would a single person in top 1% in 1950's have even considered claiming state aid. They knew what the welfare state was for. Mind you nobody with Katie underclass background would be in top 1%.
And in the 1950's a child like Harvey would have been locked away in residential care years ago
I agree with this. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. We have free prescriptions in Scotland. I COULD go and see my gp and get a prescription for hay fever remedies. But I don't. I don't believe its a good use of resources both in cost of the medication and doctors time. If I was worth the money KP is worth, I couldn't bring myself to claim such a benefit knowing many other families all over the country are struggling to get by on a day to day basis. I don't pay tax to sit and count my P60 and think how much I can get back out of it, that's not the point for me. The point for me is to pay into a system that helps those in need.
My husband is in the higher tax bracket. We would gladly pay for any services we could fund ourselves to allow resources to be better spent on those not in a position to do so.
Excellent, good for you. I assume your husband is in a more stable employment than KP tho.
The blame lies squarely with the government and not KP .
But you don't have to that's your choice, if you choose to pay a huge amount of tax then don't both claiming what you have paid for when you need it, who is the fool for paying twice.;-)
I can assure you not. My brother was born with both physical and mental disability in mid 50's and he was not placed in care. It is a complete re writing of history and shameful to cast my parents generation in such a light. There weren't the handouts to support a disabled child but parents saw a child as their responsibility. The fact that they just got on with it is testament to the label self sufficient generation. There were many parents just like mine.
It was a strain on families with disabled child and the assistance to those in need in the following decades is totally right. BUT when it becomes a multi millionaire claiming state aid the system is broken. Harvey taxi fare is no respite care for another family who don't have the luxury of a nanny. Spare your concerns for that family struggling with the day to day care. I know what this means I grew up with it.
I don't see it as being foolish. Paying tax is a fact of life. It's something that I see as doing to help others who are not in the same position as ourselves. Unfortunately that help is not distributed properly - and at a both ends of the scale, rich people like KP and poor people who claim benefits all their lives as a lifestyle choice. As a result too many people are suffering e.g. the school which Harvey originally attended is closed and the whole community are the losers.
Absolutely. Just to clarify, my comments are directed at a system that allows such a situation to happen, not the people who do what the system entitles them to do.
If the system is broken then surely the remedy lies with government ? Or are you actually saying that our precarious NHS is totally dependent upon the wealthy refusing to use the facilities that they paid the most into ? It's not going to happen . The wealthy will move out of the UK , or be so disincentiveised and disinclined to create wealth and jobs that the economy would suffer and the NHS.
I agree, and I suppose that's down to an individuals way of thinking, I would like to think that I would modify my lifestyle ( a few less horses, a smaller mansion, whatever and meet those costs myself, freeing up 10's of thousands in the hope that some of hat money could go toward those many thousands out there who are means tested, the vulnerable and elderly, those that are having scant home input cut even further and the elderly that literally can not afford to have the heating on....I acknowledge this is not Price's responsibility and I am not laying the problem's and lack of desperately needed support at her door and neither would I want to see Harvey's rights to education denied.................I think it is a personal issue...and there quite likely is a fair few wealthy people out there who choose not take everything they or their child are entitled to.
Also have to agree about the tax angle.....a millionaire in the higher tax bracket is extremely likely to have the money to pay people to avoid paying anything near that much and I agree that all things being relative, the person working in Tesco is likely paying more tax.
What a great post, I agree with every word.
Except it's not a benefit.
Nobody pays 45% tax on all their earnings.
Yes. We know that. The Price of them being paid by the state is for the benefit of his very rich mother.
The real problem for parents with severely disabled children and those with learning disabilities is when their child leaves Education at 18. From what I can gather the support network ends and parents are left to cope by themselves with no respite or anything. Of course this won't effect parents who are well of because they can afford to pay for respite and residential stay. But for families on low income it is impossible. I would like the government to give more help to post 18 adults who have a disability.
If there was a school close by Which could cope with his very complex needs, I am sure she would be happy to transport him herself. She is a dedicated Mother and has chosen to bring him up as part of the family and not put him into residential care. If she had it would cost the local authority hundreds of thousands of pounds every year of his life.
There are parents all over the country who have special needs kids and they all get their transport to school provided. Many of these are very wealthy but as their children will have statements of Educational Needs and its specified in those statements which schools they should attend it is up to the LA to fund it.
I for one, think she has been a great Mum to Harvey and I wish people would leave her alone. It's a pity Harvey's Dad doesn't step up and do his bit too.