1092
Not a thunderdome
(lazysoci.al)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
1092 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
8159 readers
2478 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Environmentalism is difficult because it just doesn't work for certain things. CO2 is for a big part of the population not a real issue. Like they die anyway soonish. If you talk about clean beaches and parks, It could work but that is probably not your focus.
Proper healthcare as in 'free'? Or just a better quality? Anti-corpo health insurance?
I would love to think about arguments like that but I need details to form them.
Thanks mate. Common thing I come up against with healthcare is "it's socialised medicine! It's badly run and a waste of money". I've never managed to successfully argue against that.
Well, the more intellectual solid argument would be the argument of normalized price. Just like in anything in capitalism, the price of stuff changes. By e.g. investing a little into a stock every Monday, no matter what, you normalize the cost of your stocks. On a large enough time scale, you will have paid the average price of the stock over the timeframe. So you "never" bought the peak, and... Well the dip... But it give you a reasonable security, if you have to sell you don't lose much under most situations. and well, you don't win much. If we see healthcare under the same light, we can conclude that a tax (a regular investment independent of market conditions) into the healthcare system, would normalize your cost of healthcare. So in the case, you need healthcare, you don't lose or win much compared to your normalized price. While otherwise you might buy the dip or the peak. Obviously the counterargument would be that it is only true of the health is average. If you are above average healthy, you would statistically speaking pay more. Counterargument of the counterargument is of course that e.g. cancer can fuck anyone at any time. So averaging your risk might be a good choice. Obviously private health insurance are normalizing cost too but most "customers" better normalization and a broader distribution of administrative costs. Think of it like big corporation replacing small family business by being cheaper through broader distribution of costs.
I think that is a bit complex for the previous style.
So the better short argument would be about distribution of costs. In a "if you live alone, you need to cook, if you live with your partner, only 1 person needs to cook" way. But I need more time.
Oooooh nice! Thanks so much for this, it's really helpful ☺️
I want to add that in capitalism Inflation is basically required and wanted by the state. That means the current price should be above the normalized price. as the current price should be the most inflated price.
Not sure how much the people you talk to about this care about facts supporting the argument but if they do, the US government spends by far the highest %gdp on healthcare out of any country in the world (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/public-health-expenditure-share-gdp?tab=table), and people still go bankrupt from medical debt.
Now, in reality this figure is likely a bit skewed because well earning jobs (like doctors) in the US make obscene amounts of money (hello extremely high income inequality), but you don't have to tell them that, and also the other argument still applies anyway.
To add something else, preventative care can often save costs compared to the ailments it's trying to prevent. By making preventative care free, more people are likely to get it, reducing overall healthcare costs.
Preventative care! Of course! Saves money in the long term. Nice one
There are lots of arguments in favor of environmental protections even if someone thinks CO2 is not an issue. Think smog over major cities, or rivers being too polluted to swim in, or oil spills. You can't eat the fish you catch in many water bodies because of industrial contamination with heavy metals and PCBs. Mine tailings leach chemicals out into lakes and rivers. This is all very visible stuff that cannot be waved away with vague doubts.
You can counter the "drill baby drill" people by pointing out that using up our oil first makes us dependent on other countries in the future. Given that the world has a finite supply of oil, it's smart to keep ours in the ground as much as possible. Hold on to that domestic oil as a future "strategic reserve," and focus on developing renewables for our daily energy needs.
I agree with you but you seem to misunderstand me. I tried to express that for a lot of people the CO2 issue is the one that they really want to focus on, due to the impact. The arguments for reducing CO2 are almost entirely long term issues and a lot of people think they won't experience it anyway as they die beforehand, making a selfish argument difficult. Especially if they are supposed to be simple punchline.
For non-co2 issues, it is easy.