Another thing: those in favour of 'free' health care just kind of assume that their position is morally superior to all other opinions.
Can someone explain to me why only paying for your own health care is somehow morally wrong or inferior?
canada has universal healthcare.
the consensus is that america never will.
can anyone explain why, please?
Another thing: those in favour of 'free' health care just kind of assume that their position is morally superior to all other opinions.
Can someone explain to me why only paying for your own health care is somehow morally wrong or inferior?
canada has universal healthcare.
the consensus is that america never will.
can anyone explain why, please?
@Syd
Your post isn't really much of an answer.
US citizens don't mind paying for road repairs even if they don't drive.
Re foreign policy they'll pay their taxes but vote for another candidate come election time.
The healthcare issue is big, very big.
Americans just will not accept that they have to pay, via their taxes, for other people's healthcare.
canada has universal healthcare.
the consensus is that america never will.
can anyone explain why, please?
Here's another thing I forgot to say in my comments on page 5 ...
If every state decided for itself - yes, there would be migration to the states that have 'free' healthcare.
But there would also be migration the other way. Small-c conservatives who disagree but happen to live in a left-leaning state would move to a conservative state.
This kind of thing goes on already. I follow an African-American women who has a youtube channel. She has conservative values and has moved to a state like Texas or Georgia for that very reason.
So, I guess my point is that migration works both ways.
canada has universal healthcare.
the consensus is that america never will.
can anyone explain why, please?
Obviously the ideal is for the whole Country to implement a proper system - but why should all the US citizens who disagree with free (at the point of delivery) healthcare be forced to pay for it via their tax dollars?
Doesn't sound fair to me.
canada has universal healthcare.
the consensus is that america never will.
can anyone explain why, please?
everyone would move to the state that has healthcare free at the point of access - yeah, there may very well be an increase of people moving to, say, Cali.
But why would that mean that my suggestion wouldn't work?
I think Americans should think about the fact that noone from other countries that have free healthcare says they don't want it - yeah, this may be true. But I also think Americans, if they want free healthcare, should look at the NHS and learn from its mistakes.
I still think letting each state decide for itself has some merit in it.
canada has universal healthcare.
the consensus is that america never will.
can anyone explain why, please?
Here's a suggest re healthcare in America: let each state decide want it wants to do.
So, conservative-leaning Texas would likely vote against NHS-style healthcare, and that's ok.
But left-leaning California might vote in favour. So, let the Californian authorities pay for it by raising the taxes of Californian citizens.
^^^ Makes sense, no?
original reddit post (removed).
It's not going away Lloyd - exactly, primarily because Lloyd doubles and triples down. It's never his fault.
If he would have held his hands up, admitted what he did, said he'll step back from CSA issues and said he was taking a break to apologise to his wife and patch things up with her, he would probably have more patreons then he currently does. Our interest as bystanders would have subsided long ago. But he just cannot do that.
original reddit post (removed).
Schofield now claims the outrage is "homophobia" - yeah he's sorry-not sorry.
So let's test his theory by imaging Schofield is heterosexual.
He visited a 15 year old girl's school, started a relationship with her when she was 19, got her a job at ITV, dropped her when he thought his affair was about to be exposed (all the time cheating on his wife, of course) ...
^^^ It's not good, is it?
However way we slice it, Schofield is a lying, narcissistic little shit, a bit like someone else we know ...
original reddit post (removed).
@Kim
I read that Schofield first met the boy when the boy was 15 and Schofield, at the time about 46, was visiting his school.
The boy moved to London at 18 and got a job on ITV's This Morning at 19 as a runner (no doubt arranged by Schofield). They then started a relationship soon after. Schofield has done nothing illegal here (UK age of consent is 16) but he has behaved badly. There's a reason he wanted to hide this particular relationship. For a start, there was a power imbalance in their relationship - Schofield is old enough to be the young man's father. So, there is a whiff of pederasty about the whole thing. Second, there's the nepotism element. Schofield was er, 'grooming' the boy for future jobs, including in front of the camera. And then, there are all Schofield's lies. Lying to his wife, his co-presenter, ITV bosses, etc.
In 2020, Schofield came out, somewhat overdramatically, as gay. It was a ridiculous performance. I remember thinking at the time: 'meh, so what?' ... now I know why, lol.
Yeah, Schofield and Roy Devans are both narcissists. It's all about them.
The only difference between the two is that we know Schofield has done nothing illegal with his former younger lover. We can't say the same thing re Roy Devans and his dick's exploits.
original reddit post (removed).
Lloyds very first attempt to dismiss what he did on his livestream by comparing it with "worse crimes" was to say "I've not raped anybody".
Question: How could he know?
^^^ exactly.
He doesn't know for sure how old the sex workers he used were.
He doesn't know for sure, even if they were adults, whether they were forced into sex work or not.
Nobody knows ...