Ship of Fools: BBC 2: Inside Obama's White House

Thread: BBC 2: Inside Obama's White House Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029685

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Has anyone been watching this? I watched the second one last night and found it excellent, but difficult, viewing. The contrasts between the focussed discussions in the White House and the mobilisation of braying right-wing mobs was very striking. It is yet another reminder of how easily political machines can manipulate public opinion and behaviour.

What did you make of the fact that it was the nuns, rather than the bishops, who mobilised to support Obamacare? I suspect that they know something of women's healthcare that the bishops do not.

Best wishes,

K.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Being in the U.S., I don't think that was shown over here, so I can't speak specifically about that program.

But not all Nuns support Obamacare.

[ 24. March 2016, 12:47: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The cruel irony of it all is that the GOP is the party of small government. They are supposed to be getting government out of our lives. Alas, this is revealed to be riddled with exceptions. Your uterus, your bathroom habits, your sex life, your birth control -- these things they want to supervise.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

It was very distressing to watch. One moment of tragicomedy came when an anti-healthcare protester demanded that the government 'keep its hands off her medicare'—which is, of course, solely a government programme.

Obama looked lonely.

K.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It was very distressing to watch. One moment of tragicomedy came when an anti-healthcare protester demanded that the government 'keep its hands off her medicare'—which is, of course, solely a government programme.

Obama looked lonely.

K.

A dear old lady at my church (who has since died) used to fuss all the time about Obamacare and socialism. But she was totally dependent on Social Security (having outlived her IRAs) and Medicare.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Gah! That's another one I need to watch on iPlayer (catchup). Being out most evenings this week isn't helpful in that respect. Thanks for flagging it up.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It was very distressing to watch. One moment of tragicomedy came when an anti-healthcare protester demanded that the government 'keep its hands off her medicare'—which is, of course, solely a government programme.

Obama looked lonely.

K.
A dear old lady at my church (who has since died) used to fuss all the time about Obamacare and socialism. But she was totally dependent on Social Security (having outlived her IRAs) and Medicare.

The "far-right" parties in Europe are fiercely defensive of those government benefits that are universal to all citizens - epsecially healthcare and pensions - and attack as wasteful and unfair those government benefits that are means-tested - like welfare for the poor. Trump is similar (he defends Medicare and Social Security, which all people are entitled to at a certain age, but attacks Obamacare, which only gives subsidies to people in a certain income range and which excludes people with employer-provided insurance from the insruance exchanges). Trump does say that he won't "let people die in the street" but hospitals receiving federal government funds have been forced to treat people for emergency care regardless of ability to pay since the 1980s (although they can bill people without insurance as much as they want).

Saying "get your government hands off my Medicare" comes from viewing a universal government benefit, one that everyone and not just the poor gets, as not really a "government" program. A lot of people in the US have come to view "government" as "welfare," "taxes," "bureaucracy," and little else. This is why conservatives have fought so hard against every single universal entitlement program when it was introduced (including Social Security and Medicare), calling it socialism and saying it will be the end of the US as we know it, because they knew that once people got used to it they would no longer think of it as "government" and would defend it fiercely even if they hated everything else about government. The GOP is still trying to kill Obamacare, which despite its flaws has been effective at insuring people and has the potential of being expanded to fill in the remaining gaps and give the US truly universal healthcare, because it (the GOP) knows that if it becomes universal and people get used to it, it will become just like Medicare and Social Security and people will no longer think of it as government.

This is not as extreme in other countries but the far right in Europe has benefited from a crowd of people who both resent government and are terrified of losing their healthcare and/or pension benefits from it. Immigrants are seen as competition not only for jobs but also for government spending - more government money spent providing services to immigrants, in the mind of the far right voter, is less money for traditional universal government benefits like healthcare and pensions. Economists may not always agree but politics was never about being rational.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In a spirit of showing Obama in a happier moment: did you know he can do the tango? His talents utterly floor me. There is nothing I would believe the man cannot do. Balance on foot rockets while combating the Incredible Hulk? Tap dance across the floor, up the wall and onto the ceiling? Make a light saber fly to his hand? Sure.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re Social Security being a "universal entitlement" program:

It isn't. You have to have to have been employed, and earned a certain number of credits. (Except for survivors' benefits.)

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :

Edited... opps wrong thread

[ 26. March 2016, 10:58: Message edited by: starbelly ]

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

I got to view the first episode this evening on iPlayer. My impression is that the narrative is very close to that of Obama with relatively little Republican footage to counterbalance this (not that I am too concerned about this, since I rate Obama as probably the best US-President in my lifetime so far).

Getting his stimulus package off the ground was an important political project at the time, but I was left with the feeling that he may have sowed some of the seeds for later political polarisation by blatantly buying off some senators.

But to fast-forward to 2016, I think Obama is a president who has achieved a good deal. He has not made America great again, but he has won her back some level of international respect. I shudder to think that I could count off the number of weeks with one hand that it would take a President Cruz or Trump to destroy the fragile gains that the US's international standing have made since 2009.

Posted by AlexaHof (# 18555) on :

I found this riveting viewing, and will probably watch episode two again in search of a better understanding of US political processes.

Distressing? Interesting question. Afraid I was completely unsurprised by all the obstacles Obama encountered in trying to do what is, from a mainstream British perspective, a fairly uncontroversial Good Thing. Unsurprised because the behaviour onscreen replicated, albeit in enlarged form what, in my experience, often occurs on in offices and organisations. Humans do not seem to be very good at working together in these kind of situations.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0