this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
1279 points (98.9% liked)

Political Memes

11998 readers
2886 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Well okay, but:

  • Almost all of the world's universal health care systems are found in capitalist systems. (Cuba and maaaaybe China could be considered exceptions.)
  • Introducing any of those systems in the US would save money, not cost it. While it's bad for the economy to have billionaires, that's not the reason you guys don't have a proper health care system.
[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago
  • Vietnam has an ok public healthcare system given their relatively low wealth, North Korea had one until very recently, those are basically the only other non capitalist countries out there...
  • the socialised healthcare systems in the rest of the world are a legacy of socialist movements, a compromise against communism, and they exist despite capitalism not because of it
  • it would save money for normal people, not for the very wealthy
[–] MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Universal healthcare is a socialist policy. The systems with it would be mixed economies.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Mixed systems are the best systems. Any government would collapse under any PURE ideology. We're supposed to be a Representative Democracy, but the best things in our society are the Socialist things - Public schools, parks, libraries, roads, highways, bridges, military, fire departments, etc. I'd add police departments, but I don't think they belong under the best Socialist things in our society.

The best system is one that combines the best ideas from other systems, and avoids the worst ideas. It can get messy around the edges, but overall, "Keep the best, reject the rest," is good government policy.

[–] MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

What exactly is the worst idea here? Redistribution of wealth?

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy not socialism.

https://youtube.com/shorts/zMmjKRettxA

[–] MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Socialism refers to public (and unfortunately sometimes government) ownership of a service. In this case, health insurance. Government health insurance is socialist because it is owned by the government (which represents the public according to some socialists) instead of the capitalists.

By your own definition, health insurance is the "product" being "produced".

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Once again, socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Universal healthcare, subsidized healthcare, government-assisted healthcare, whatever name you want to give it, has nothing to do with whether a government is socialist. Public healthcare can be offered by virtually any type of government.

Like many people on this platform, you're confusing the words social and socialist. They are not the same thing. As defined above, a social democrat is not a socialist. Government programs that provide assistance to the population are not inherently socialist programs; they are welfare programs.

You are not advocating for public ownership of the means of production. You are advocating for welfare programs that benefit the population under a democratic government. I genuinely do not understand why so many people on this platform have such a difficult time grasping this distinction.

So I will simply leave you with the below quote.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[–] MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Public healthcare cannot be offered by a fully capitalist government. I would argue welfare itself could be deemed socialist. Production also benefits the population btw.

Also, jesus christ man. what is that quote?

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Most developed and developing countries on Earth have public healthcare systems and are still fully capitalist. Nearly all European countries are examples of this. Even the United States has forms of public healthcare. People often forget that America already provides government-funded healthcare through programs such as Medicare and Medicaid; one simply has to qualify, and tens of millions of Americans do.

Once again, please listen to what I'm saying: welfare programs are not socialism. The words "social" and "socialism" have two entirely different meanings. A country can be capitalist, communist, a dictatorship, or a monarchy and still offer social programs, more accurately described as welfare programs. The existence of those programs does not determine the underlying economic system.

The quote is from Billy Madison, which kind of gives you away. You're probably too young to even be having this discussion, let alone offering an opinion on the matter.

[–] MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

No country on Earth is fully capitalist. Also, I don't think a country can be communist. Kinda goes against the definition.

Dawg, "Billy Madison" is 30 years old. You gotta be atleast twice the voting age to have watched it when it released.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Almost all of the world’s universal health care systems are found in capitalist systems. (Cuba and maaaaybe China could be considered exceptions.)

Much like gdp vs gdp per capita, a much more interesting statistic here would be the percentage of countries that have universal health care. Still kind of reductive, but it has the benefit of not being misleading, which I can't say of your statistic. Think before you speak.

Introducing any of those systems in the US would save money, not cost it. While it’s bad for the economy to have billionaires, that’s not the reason you guys don’t have a proper health care system.

Please draw the rest of the owl? You just made a gigantic leap. I don't see the relation at all. Are you implying that billionaires are concerned about efficiency or something? I'd argue they're more concerned about paying their workers as little as possible. And one way to make this much, much easier is by skewing the negotiations in your favor by having their literal health and well-being tied to working for you, which universal healthcare really ruins. Think before you speak.