Well, the facts suggest as much and I doubt its limited to America. Plato justified it as the Noble Lie
I had to stop somewhere, but yeah.
Plato also said, "The measure of a man is what he does with power."
Lot of myths about WW II. Unlike WWI where revisionism corrected a lot of the myths snd propaganda that was not allowed after WW II . I dont want to get dragged into defending him but I saw no evidence before WW II that he wanted anything more than Eastward expansion.
Japan and Russia were allies with us and Britain in WWI and we helped to negotiate the peace between Russia and Japan before this. There were some tensions between the two over immigration and our occupation of Phillipines and Hawaii before WWI. After WWI there were some tensions over the Japanese occupation of former German held lands in China which Japan considered was their sphere of influence. This was temporaily resolved but tensions escalated when we banned Japanese immigration in 1924.
In the 1930's Japan decided to expand in China and East Asia since it needed resources. This took off under FDR who then recognized Stalin shortly after taking office which opened the way to trade and loans which Japan feared would increase the threat to them . Limited sanctions against Japan followed until FDR pulled the trigger. Japan never had plans to rule the world. They did have an alliance with Hitler to counter the Soviet-US-UK and French alliance all of whom had aspirations to control Asia which was already considerable with the various colonies snd occupations
None of this is to say Japan and Hitler were good or innocent. But neither was Stalin and Mao, and in the end Stalin and Communist China ruled half the world
Not before the war happened, but after the ease of taking most of europe, his designs changed. Then he started thinking the world should be his. The japanese had the total pacific area in mind, including asia long before WWII. Which is why they went to war with russia and then the soviet union, they considered that as part of asia. No they had no plans for total world domination, just asia and all of the pacific under their control. That was why they were willing to make a deal with Hitler, he had no designs on Asia (though the soviet union was different). The japanese would let him have the west and they would have the east.
And yes the west did plan on controlling the east, which to the japanese was insulting because to them, they were the rightful rulers of that area of the world. Thus the conflict, the japanese and the US along with france and england. Which is what I stated, that the US and Japan were on a collision course because they both wanted the same territory for themselves. You are just stating what I said about how they were competing before FDR and proving my point.
And I don't understand how Mao or Stalin got into this, but yes, neither of them were decent people. And WWII allowed both of them and the US to rule the world in the end.
News Flash! Single payer healthcare is cheaper than what we have, not more expensive, in both internalized and externalized costs, and the quality of the results is higher.
Cool. So then you're ready to pay for it if the Repugnantcans pay for border security.
Works for me.
None of this is to say Japan and Hitler were good or innocent. But neither was Stalin and Mao, and in the end Stalin and Communist China ruled half the world.
And slaughtered many, many millions of their own citizens in an attempt to produce a conformist, controlled society built according to the principles of Scientific Socialism.
I'm willing to enjoy the savings, regardless of whether the Republicans waste our money on border security.
In an attempt to stay on the healthcare topic, and in the simplest terms, what it boils down to is:
Why would anyone build the most advanced healthcare system in the world, then turn it over to private hands to use to extort as much money as possible from the people who already paid for it, while delivering as little care as possible in return. Or, we could try to figure out how to deliver as much care to the most people in the most cost effective manner. Insanity or rational behavior. Desperately clinging to the ideology of unregulated capitalism and the myth of a free market as a cure all is KILLING millions, bankrupting the rest of us and preventing any rational discussion of how to solve healthcare and other problems.
Desperately clinging to the ideology of unregulated capitalism and the myth of a free market as a cure all is KILLING millions, bankrupting the rest of us and preventing any rational discussion of how to solve healthcare and other problems.
I would argue that the problem is really the Fascist collusion between big business and government. The perfect example is the wildly misnamed ACA. The insurance industry's desire for more expensive healthcare backed by government enforcement. "Buy the insurance or we'll punish you!"
Big business hates a truly free market above all things precisely because that would force prices down.
Look at Lasik treatments over the years. Because it isn't covered by insurance, the tech has improved as the costs have plummeted. Look at anything covered by insurance from healthcare to roofing. The prices just go up and up.
Substituting a vast government bureaucracy for big business greed won't help. You might claim that your direct cost might go down but the true costs are astronomical. The same government that buys a Navy jet for $337,000,000 isn't going to save money on healthcare or anything else.
I agree that the problem you describe is attributable to the insurance industry, perhaps the biggest player in the fascist collusion of which you speak. Under universal coverage and single payer they are put out of business, relegated only to the fringe markets where you can buy coverage for cosmetic surgery, no-science therapies or meds that cost thousands of times more than last years version which worked better, if you are wealthy and stupid enough to pay for it.
I'm sure that the Americans who work in the insurance industry are pleased, Can't make an omelet without laying eggs and our "socalled" president has already laid a clutch.
The problem isn't particularly right or left for both have their own good and bad aspects but totalitarianism by its very nature is repressive. In the political spectrum the further you get from the extremes the more responsive and culturally productive a nation can be for the political spectrum isn't modeled by a straight line but a circle with a line through it.The extremes of fascism and communism have little practical difference for the populations who suffer under the rule of tyranny. Trump in his ignorance is a very dangerous man.
The big health insurers were planning on dropping out of the ACA long before Obama left office and they were planning to raise premiums as well. Moreover, President Obama knew that the Federal government owed 100 millions of dollars to insurers for risky medical coverage provided to patients. This senseless political blustering between Obamacare and Trumpcare, i.e., democrats vs. republicans, is a battle that the American people will never come out as winners. So, this article doesn't provide any new information other than to politicize an issue so important to many Americans. As long as health care continues to be driven by a profit-motive, medical costs will increase and the sick will continue to die without medical attention. The corruption of politicians of both parties will not allow for either party to take a stand for a moral authority to fight for health coverage for all Americans.
totalitarianism by its very nature is repressive.
I cannot agree more. People arguing about Communism vs. Socialism vs. Fascism are like people arguing the relative merits of 7Up vs. Sprite. Very slight differences.
All require a totalitarian state which is a Bad Thing indeed.
Thank you for your response however, you seem to be lumping socialism in with the repressive extremes of communism and fascism. Those on the right often fail to see the great difference between the repressive effects of communism and the open dialogue of a socialist society that places the rights and benefits of the individual over the potential corruption of a financially driven state or the whims of a dictator. What is good for GE is not necessarily good for America.
The only trouble with the ACA is that it went too far to accommodate the private sector. It is simple arithmetic, the only real solution to health care is a global type system like Medicare for all. As long as the health care system trusts the, for profit sector, people are going to pay 800.00 dollars a pill to live. That works OK for people like Ryan and McConnell whose health care is paid for by us, put for some poor schmuck slinging garbage cans for a living it ain't pretty. Their legacy is understandable, they want to insure their retirement by working for the industry. Both parties do it.