I don't think it would seem that she understands the meaning of the word compassion.

It's not a threat to their life.
I'm sorry, but when we can't offer life-saving cancer treatment in this county 'cause of low funds, but offer operations to change your sex cosmetically, then something needs to be looked at.
I don't give a flying flip what someone chooses to do with their own body, but I don't want to pay for it.
They should pay out of their own pocket.
AND don't get me started on the ppl who get boob jobs on the premise they find having small t*ts depressing.

She's probably paid a ton of money in taxes - why shouldn't she be entitled to care?

Spot on, Scarlett

This seems to have gone way over the head of some.

Agree with those that say KP pays her taxes (a large amount) so it shouldn't be any different to anyone else that receives an allowance. It's kind of head scratching why anyone would see it differently.

How about drunks costing a fortune up and down the country in A & E, ambulance transportation and admissions. They cost the NHS millions per year

Yep.

I just find it so unsavoury that the welfare of a disabled child is being pounced upon as an opportunity for Katie to do what she does.
The public is now talking about a child who has NO say in his disability and deserves the privacy to live as he needs to with dignity and not with us talking about who pays for his care.

Katie Price shouldn't even entertain Hopkins with vulnerable matters like this. Hope she learns from it.

There should only be breast reductions for those whose backs are suffering and its too much for them. I can't believe they fund breast implants when people can't get the best first line drugs for cancer.

And anyone who ends up in A&E and is drunk should pay for their treatment

Ofc, you're right.
Have you ever been stuck in Casualty...waiting for ages, with a real ailment, whilst gaggles of drunk morons are seen before you?
Drunks and druggies can join the back of the line too.

If she is really worth 40 million, wouldn't the interest she earns on this pay for her son's treatment?

Drug addicts and real alcoholics need help.

But people who get plastered and binge drink to have fun should pay for their treatments.

Person A thinks a multi millionaire person B should pay for medical type costs rather than it come out of the taxpayers pocket.

And? So what?

Hardly the outrage the OP seems to be trying to make out, and the thread title/ premise is misleading.

And being deliberately obtuse, disingenuous or just plain dumb about why we pay taxation. She objects to the unemployed claiming anything at all and objects to a massive taxpayer doing the same. Who does qualify for anything from the pot according to the idiot dictator Hopkins? I wish I knew. Democracy does not suit her in any way shape or form, that's for sure. What is her alternative? I shudder to think.

It's not really the point though. She's a tax payer (would it be 40%?) and so her son shouldn't be treated any differently to any other disabled child.

Not really.
The point is: That KP, along with others who probably contribute more in a year than most would do in a lifetime...are fully entitled to reap the benefits that are offered to the rest of the country. Amongst whom there are ppl who have never lifted a finger to contribute to the country, yet no one seems to mind them taking advantage of what is offered.

Except Person A is also a taxpayer whose tax money probably covers her own son's treatment + a bunch of others' treatments...

Hopkins is simply trying to find her next target.

The outrage brigade on here totally missing the point of what Hopkins was saying

That's what income tax is supposedly used for . National insurance etc. The more you earn the more you pay. A low earner pays a lower amount but is still entitled to the same treatment. Being denied cancer drugs is not down to KP and the like. It is down to the Governments prioritising. The Governments have slaughtered the NHS. They find money for bombs but not treatments.

People are so blinkered. The rich pay, smokers pay we all pay. The Government decide where it goes.

This is about denying a child the help he needs because Hopkins says so. Hopefully she never has a child that needs help. KP already pays it isn't rocket science. Katie Hopkins has found her next victim is all. Perez has gone she thinks so it's KP's turn to be humiliated etc.

Not only that but she doesn't necessarily pay the taxation people assume she does. No doubt being the businesswoman she is who has made a fortune KP has an excellent accountant who has written losses against profits and who has managed to save her some money. That's why the first rule of business is to get a good accountant.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s150/...p2vKMAF3Taw5QQ

David Cameron Claimed everything he could. Hopkins is just repulsive no subject is out of bounds even though she hasn't got a clue what she's talking about. Mum used to do this job of taking disabled Children to school either via the bus or Taxi a lot of them were in need of non stop attention owing to the nature if the illness/disability but it allowed them to carry on being in school with other children.

Once you start saying you pay for this and you pay for that the entire social care structure falls apart. Its the reason Taxes are in place to cover things like this (which in this instance are covered by the local education)

What Harvey receives by way of care is written within law, the local authority has a duty of care to provide such as is HIS RIGHT not his parents nor anybody else.

I suggest that anyone who objects reads The Childrens Act.

I'm sure they do.
However, if they can pay for their habit, they can pay for their own treatment.
Why should they be entitled to free NHS care, when they got themselves into their own mess?
Maybe then they'd give a sh*t about what they were doing to themselves, along with ppl who gorge on food, and then toddle off to get treatment on the NHS for it.

Yes, I do see this but I'm sort of 50/50. It's not something I would be comfortable doing myself.

So? Laws can, and should be changed and reassessed from time to time.

I wont comment either way about other f/m's as I have a lot of them on ignore.