Guest Post: Thank God for the Conscience of the Nation

by Benjamin Orbach

The camera zooms in on Hadassah Lieberman’s hands as they sort through the day’s mail. She comes across a bill from FirstCare and tears it open. $243 for ear wax removal for the Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman’s recent blockage!

No co-pay, no more.

That $243 will be coming out of pocket!

That’s a scene from the new reality TV show, “Caring for the Conscience of the Nation … and his family.” In discussions on the Senate’s versions of the proposed health care bill, the Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman has asserted, If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote.”

It is only logical that if the Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman scuttles an agreement in the days ahead and keeps some 30 million Americans from attaining health care, there are three things we have to do as a nation:

(1) Pass legislation that bars the Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman, his wife Hadassah, his four children, and five grandchildren from carrying any form of health care. This might not seem fair. But it isn’t easy being right when everyone else is wrong. The Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman is willing to prove it. Besides, while it might get painful when it is time for more grandchildren or a root canal, this arrangement will give the Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman a better chance to be in touch with his public. See below.

(2) Bestow the official title of “Conscience of the Nation,” upon the Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman. I propose a nationally televised ceremony where a council of elders led by Bob Dole, Angela Lansbury, John McLaughlin, and Rue McClanahan present the Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman with a certificate proclaiming his official authority as the “Conscience of the Nation.” No longer will he be called “Senator Joe Lieberman” or even “Shoeless Joe” for his hi-jinks in the Dirksen cafeteria. Instead, on all talk shows, committee hearings, public events, and religious occasions, the Senator formerly known as Joe Lieberman will be referred to as “The Conscience of the Nation.”

For example, at TGI Fridays, the waitress will have to ask, “Does the Conscience of the Nation prefer soup or salad with his Johnny Walker salmon filet?” Or when he is dunking at Madison Square Garden, Marv Albert will have to yell, “YES! The Conscience of the Nation serves up a facial to Nate Robinson.”

(3) Produce a reality TV show called “Caring for the Conscience of the Nation.” A weekly half-hour show which tracks the highlights of Lieberman family’s new health-care less life  -- this will blow the Kardashians out of the water! Some potential classic scenes:

- The Conscience of the Nation explaining to his grandson that he can’t ever play sports because of the risk of injury. He then presents his grandson with War and Peace and some $9 reading glasses from CVS and tells him to “grow wise like his grandfather.”

- A minor auto accident sends the Conscience of the Nation to the emergency room with a stiff neck!  The Conscience of the Nation is forced to endure a six-hour wait and 20 pages of paperwork that he can’t lean over to fill out.

- H1N1 is out and about, so it is time for a chicken soup cooking lesson with Mrs. Conscience of the Nation. Who needs immunizations when you’ve got kreplach?

At the end of each episode, Bernice, a snippy, short-haired, glasses-wearing British accountant will review the Conscience of the Nation’s finances. We find out how much the Conscience of the Nation paid in medical costs that week and receive updates on his financial worth as well as projections about what an extended stay in the hospital will do to his grandchildren’s prospects for higher education and/or vacations outside of Connecticut.

Each episode would also include an Andy Rooney styled address from the Conscience of the Nation. This would be a chance for the Conscience of the Nation to share his feelings about current events. I think I speak for us all when I say I’m dying to know the Conscience of the Nation’s thoughts on Tiger Woods. This segment would also be an opportunity for the Conscience of the Nation to enlighten us on the ins and outs of how we should live our daily lives. When riding the subway, when is it okay to stretch across three seats, for example?

For the Conscience of the Nation, this segment would be a grand opportunity to connect with the millions of Americans who need his help and guidance. There are so many of us who just don’t have access to the wisdom and moral superiority that the Conscience of the Nation offers so effortlessly. Of course, they’ll have to vary the time during the show that the Conscience of the Nation offers his monologue. If they are back-loaded a la Andy Rooney, some Americans may tune out before the program is over.

Benjamin Orbach is the author of Live from Jordan: Letters Home from My Journey through the Middle East. He lives in New York and has health care. He can be reached at www.benjaminorbach.com.

Comments

[laura]

I wish, oh how I wish...

Are you a new commentator here? Thanks, and I hope to read more from you!

[Jay Jerome]

Sometimes bad motives have positive results, and if somehow Lieberman manages to completely derail the abortion of health-care legislation the Democrats have managed to mangle together in their pompous idiocy that would be a positive step in the right direction.

Anyone with an IQ higher than their belt size knows the Senate watered-down, unrealistic, destructive bill the Democrats are offering is only going to benefit the same insurance companies they swore to relulate, 'a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG," as former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said yesterday.

This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate," Dean said. "Honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill.

He was a little slow coming to that conclusion, but better late than never. It's the same thing I said to the polyanna progressives on this blog when I was monitoring the Baucus hearings back in September, when I reported the legislation coming out of it was a watered down piece of crap that would do more harm than good, and that it should be killed, and rethought and redrafted AFTER the economy recovered and unemployment was under control.

And please, no more hearts and flowers about all the lives that will be saved when the uninsured are insured, because twice as many elederly will end up dying decades earlier after the cost-bending Medicare economies are implimented to pay for it: their care circumscribed and reduced so that Democrats can have reelection campaign mantras about the wonderful job they did passing what really will be a euthenasia bill to lower Medicare costs by killing off significant numbers of the elderly to reduce the Medicare roles.

[Eric Martin]

And please, no more hearts and flowers about all the lives that will be saved when the uninsured are insured, because twice as many elederly will end up dying decades earlier after the cost-bending Medicare economies are implimented to pay for it: their care circumscribed and reduced so that Democrats can have reelection campaign mantras about the wonderful job they did passing what really will be a euthenasia bill to lower Medicare costs by killing off significant numbers of the elderly to reduce the Medicare roles.

Jay, I don't think you've ever posted a more erroneous and muddled comment as that, and that's saying a lot.

There are no cuts to Medicare. There is an elimination of waste and fraud that the AARP has supported 100%. The AARP is not in the business of supporting legislation that hurts seniors.

In truth, the bill will insure tens of millions of currently uninsured, which will save thousands of lives.

The Democrats - shockingly enough! - will not cut actual Medicare benefits. Much to the chagrin of Republicans no doubt.

Regardless, what makes you think that the current obstructionist senators like Lieberman and Nelson would support an even MORE progressive bill a year from now? What would motivate them?

[Marty]

"The AARP is not in the business of supporting legislation that hurts seniors."

This single sentence defines the lack of understanding almost everyone has about whatever the Senate is considering.

The AARP is in the business of getting their 18M of stimulus money, 185M from the insurance companies (per year which will go up substantially under HCR) and making sure they are on the right side of the administration.

No single issue has created the disdain from seniors for AARP. They supported HCR before they even knew what it was, and now they know, they still are supporting a very bad bill.

I think you need a better reference than the AARP.

[Eric Martin]

I think you need a better reference than the AARP

Then I'll just go with the bill itself.

Can you, or Jay, kindly point to the section on Medicare benefit cuts.

Thanks in advance.

[Eric Martin]

Also, some history is in order.

The Democrats pushed for Medicare in the first place. At the time, the GOP (led by Ronald Reagan in an infamous speech) said that Medicare would lead the country to communism and destroy us.

Since then, the GOP has been trying to repeal or whittle down Medicare at every turn.

The only thing standing in the way of the GOP has been the Democrats, and the powerful senior lobby spearheaded by groups like the AARP.

Now you would have us all believe that the Democrats, in cohoots with the AARP, are conspiring to secretly push through massive backdoor cuts to Medicare because...well, because the Democrats have always...secretly wanted to do away with Medicare? Or something?

Riiiiiiiight.

[McKinneyTexas]

Lieberman is getting worked over pretty badly by a lot of the same people who deplored over and over again the rough time those who strayed from conservative orthodoxy got from Limbaugh et al. But now that I know that the government is going to pay for this fabulous, well-understood and openly and honestly debated program by cutting waste and fraud, I can't tell you how much better I feel. Maybe Lieberman hasn't gotten the good news.

[ceenik]

Thanks, I needed a laugh!

I thought the Republicans and Blue Dogs were our only problems. Now, with the addition of Lieberman's latest and the netroots' rejectionism, this health care insanity is giving me an ulcer.

[Marty]

"Now you would have us all believe that the Democrats, in cohoots with the AARP, are conspiring to secretly push through massive backdoor cuts to Medicare because...well, because the Democrats have always...secretly wanted to do away with Medicare? Or something"

Because now they need the money to say it is deficit neutral, I actually don't believe they will cut anything, I think it won't be deficit neutral. So which lie would you like me to call them on? That they can cut all this money out of Medicare without impacting services or that the bill will be deficit neutral? Both aren't true.

[Eric Martin]

Lieberman is getting worked over pretty badly by a lot of the same people who deplored over and over again the rough time those who strayed from conservative orthodoxy got from Limbaugh et al.

Here's the thing though: Lieberman is straying from...what Lieberman has been claiming he supported his entire career. He specifically supported the Medicare expansion to 55 years old three months ago. Three months ago he supported it. Now he says he doesn't because liberals like Anthony Weiner thought it was a good idea.

That's kind of different than enforcing orthodoxy over principled opposition.

But now that I know that the government is going to pay for this fabulous, well-understood and openly and honestly debated program by cutting waste and fraud, I can't tell you how much better I feel. Maybe Lieberman hasn't gotten the good news.

The CBO scored the legislation, and it will reduce the deficit. If it had included a public option like the one Lieberman opposes now (though used to support) it would have reduced the deficit even further.

He got the news. He just doesn't care.

[Eric Martin]

Because now they need the money to say it is deficit neutral, I actually don't believe they will cut anything, I think it won't be deficit neutral.

So wait, the legislation calls for cuts, but somehow the Democrats will not make the cuts?

So which lie would you like me to call them on? That they can cut all this money out of Medicare without impacting services or that the bill will be deficit neutral? Both aren't true.

Do you have evidence for either? The one you have evidence for I will consider. Otherwise, we have your baseless suggestions that run counter to occam's razor.

[Marty]

"Otherwise, we have your baseless suggestions that run counter to occam's razor."

I am sorry about my baseless accusation that runs counter to .... wait, isn't it the simplist explanation that 500B dollars can't be cut from Medicare without impacting something?

And no, I don't believe the Democrats will actually implement the cuts, they will be conveniently placed in the out years and will be eeasy fodder for getting funded in quieter moments or spending bills like they passed last week.

[Eric Martin]

isn't it the simplist explanation that 500B dollars can't be cut from Medicare without impacting something?

Not when you think about the fact that other countries manage to provide coverage to the same cohort at much lower prices. Not when you consider the fraud and rampant over/double billing. Not when you consider the pointless end of life care excesses.

And no, I don't believe the Democrats will actually implement the cuts, they will be conveniently placed in the out years and will be eeasy fodder for getting funded in quieter moments or spending bills like they passed last week.

So you think Jay was wrong, as I argued.

[Marty]

"So you think Jay was wrong, as I argued"

Well, wrong on the actual impact of the bad bill. He is right that after everyone has their say, and makes a mess of it, we should have passed the 80% everyone agreed on and come back when we knew how to pay for the rest.

[Eric Martin]

we should have passed the 80% everyone agreed on and come back when we knew how to pay for the rest

I didn't know that was an option. It's not like any republican has offered any inclination of support at any point in the process. And when you add in Nelson and Lieberman, and the idiotic fillibuster, there was never room to do this in such an optimal manner.

It's trench warfare. Wish it weren't this way, but blame the obstructionists.

[Marty]

Eric,

The Republican position, every time anyone bothered to ask, is that there were lots of things we could do now but an overhaul of the whole system was not a good idea. You can blame the Republicans for "just saying no" to massive HCR overhaul, I stipulate they were against it from the start. You can't say they didn't offer anything. They just offered something the Democrats ridiculed and "just said no" to from the beginning.

[Eric Martin]

What did they offer?

The only thing I remember was a plan that didn't cover as many people, but cost more money as scored by the CBO.

It would actually be a disservice to call that "nothing." It was worse.

[Marty]

Eric,

Actually, I am so tired of this (imagine how tired they must be) it isn't worth finding the articles. Trust me or not McConnell and others have said all along many of these things could have been put in smaller bills and passed long ago. Insurance reforms, state run exchanges etc.

Since I am not carrying my weight I will refrain from jumping in on this again.

[Eric Martin]

That's fine.

Suffice to say, McConnell and others also distributed memos to the Republican caucus that it was imperative to kill any and all health care reform for political reasons.

But we can leave it at that.

[Jay Jerome]

"There are no cuts to Medicare. There is an elimination of waste and fraud that the AARP has supported 100%. The AARP is not in the business of supporting legislation that hurts seniors."

You just don't get it, Eric-- really you don't.

AARP is an INSURANCE COMPANY. They derive most of their income from the sale of health and life insurance policies, especially Medicare Part B supplements. They're one of the insurance companies sure to profit hugely from the Medicare cutbacks: those seniors who can afford it will be forced to buy back the services they lose, with higher Part B policies.

It's common knowledge that AARP is a fraud, and there's been numerous exposes about them over the years. Google Annenberg Public Policy Center, and look for the report about AARP's conflict of interest, supporting the Act. There was also a recent L.A. Times editorial about them betraying their membership, constantly lobbying against its interest, etc. etc. etc.

And just how naively disoriented are you to believe that cutting that many billions of dollars from Medicare payments isn't going to negatively impact needed services to seniors? Why do you believe those cuts won't cause them damage? Because your ideological progressive cohorts say it's true? The same ones who promised a public option? Who promised no caps on treatment? Who
promised $8 billion a year savings from the drug companies, even as that industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years?

I know you mean well, but you're not doing well, keeping your head buried in the sand this way. The Senate Bill needs to be deep-sixed. And those pushing it 86-ed

[Eric Martin]

The same ones who promised a public option?

Um, no one promised a public option. No one.

Regardless of the AARP, show me in the bill where those cuts are made.

Clearly, I am suffering from naivete, so point it out. It should be easy. Right?

[Uncle Kvetch]

Regardless, what makes you think that the current obstructionist senators like Lieberman and Nelson would support an even MORE progressive bill a year from now? What would motivate them?

I don't expect for a moment that Jay will take time out from his poo-flinging to actually answer this question, but I'd enjoy watching him make the attempt.

And just how naively disoriented are you to believe that...

This, coming from a proponent of "Just wait another year or two and...um...something miraculous will happen." Thanks, Jay -- the whole health care "debate" has had me in a crappy mood all week, but you've actually given me a good chuckle.

[y81]

This Benjamin Orbach is one sanctimonious, self-righteous human being. I'm glad I don't know him in real life. I'm also glad he doesn't have any power: he'd have me in a re-education camp mighty fast.

[Eric Martin]

yup. to the reeducation camp with ya.

[Hartmut]

Could someone please bribe someone in the senate canteen (is there such a thing?) to put a laxative into anything Holy Joe consumes there (and an emetic every time he uses the word 'conscience' in public)?!
And could some senator not seeking (or expecting) reelection please defecate on senate 'courtesy' and put Joe in his place everytime he opens his mouth (use of 'vice-presidential' language included please).

[laura]

Harmut, I like the way your mind works.

Franken did cut him off from blathering endlessly from the Senate floor. But forcing him to run for the john every time he gets self righteous is better.

[John Thullen]

Senator Reid was quoted last month in reference to Republican obstruction of the Nation's business that "just getting people to flush the toilets around here takes two days."

So, adding Lieberman's unctuous, ridiculous self-righteousness to the Capitol plumbing may not be a good idea.

The projectile vomiting from the zombie-as*hole Republicans lurching around in the House chamber alone could lead to a back-up of the Potomac to its headwaters.