The Stupak Amendment

update 11/17: Just saw a fairly softball interview with Stupak on Hardball, but Stupak definitely proved his worth.  His main point, is that he want’s to keep the status quo the same, and not have federal funds going towards abortions.  I don’t think anyone disagrees on this at all, there is no need for tax payers dollars to be put towards abortions.  However, the main issue I have, is the fear of insurance companies on and off the exchange not offering abortion coverage (for those who do not need a subsidy).  Stupak said however, that he would be in favor of language in the amendment that mandated that if insurance companies offer abortion coverage outside of the exchange, then they would also have to offer it inside the exchange.  So this seems like pretty big news to me, and a good compromise to officially maintain the status quo.  Nice job Rep. Stupak.

This text is taken directly from the Stupak Amendment, and contains the main argument of the Amendment…

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

In other words, if a woman plans on entering the health care exchange that is set up, or plan on buying into the public option, it will make it near impossible for her to purchase a plan that covers abortions.  Most women who chose to buy insurance through the government will need federal subsidies, because they cannot afford to purchase a plan independently through the private sector.  Therefore, as this Amendment states, federal money cannot be given to such plans that cover abortions.  This will put the women who are at the highest risk for unplanned pregnancies in a difficult position.  Most cannot afford to buy insurance outside of the exchange, and most cannot afford to pay for an abortion, if such a need arose, on their own.  The frightening question, is what did poorer women do when abortions were made inaccessible in the past?  These Amendments (Stupak, Hyde) are an attempt phase out abortions at different levels of society, yet they will only force people to find alternate ways to deal with their personal situation.

What this is also doing is setting up different levels of accessibility in our social structure.  Those that can afford to buy their own private plans outside of the exchange, will continue to get coverage for abortions, so they will have this safety net to fall onto if needed.  But the insurance companies that will be competing with the public option on the exchange will be “forced” to include plans that do not cover abortions, due to the federal subsidies that most individuals will use to pay for it.  Insurance companies state that they need to operate under conditions where their plans are standardized, and have very little personalized changes.  Therefore, if more people choose to buy insurance through the exchange, you could see insurance companies excluding now standard abortion coverage from their plans in the futre, in order to create a more efficient process…

“If you speak to insurers in the industry, they will tell you that they simply can’t operate under these circumstances,” Rosenbaum says. “They need to be able to offer standard products that get administered in a standard way for everybody.”

Laszewski says the problem is that by all estimates, the vast majority of people who will be shopping in the new exchanges will be getting subsidies, so they won’t be allowed to get abortion coverage. Thus, if a health insurer did offer a separate plan with abortion coverage, it would only be available to a small universe of buyers, and it simply wouldn’t make much business sense.”

This is also putting the federal government in a position where they can control abortions for lower class citizens in this country.  “You have to buy an insurance plan, and if you take our money to do it, you cannot get a medical abortion.  If you don’t like this, you can choose not to buy a plan, but then we’ll punish you for it.”  Clearly, this is not what most Democrats had in mind as a stipulation in the final bill, but Stupak and the Catholic Bishops’ slipped in the Amedment, and it became what was needed to get some of the more conservative Democrats on board.

There is one more interesting aspect to the Amendment that is also prohibitive against a woman’s right to choose.  The wording is very vague, but it does speak of rape and incest as a valid reason for an abortion procedure.  What troubles me, is the fact that since insurance companies, and the public option will not offer abortions in their plans, if someone who buys a plan with a subsidy is a victim or rape or incest, insurance agents, and the victim, will need to prove it in order to have it paid for.  Anyone who has dealt with an insurance claim knows that the company is most concerned with their own bottom line as a corporation, not the patients needs.  It is a long, drawn out process that will need to include police reports, interviews, multiple claims, and endless paper work.  Therefore, a woman will have to cut through all of this red tape in order to prove that she was raped and impregnated.  The months that it would take, would only increase the risks associated with a late term abortion, and one cannot even imagine the mental anguish that a woman would go through having to deal with reliving the rape on a daily basis.

It will be very interesting to see how the more liberal Senate handles the Amendment.  Many in the House have said that if it is not included in a final bill, then there isn’t much of a chance it will be passed on to the President.  What is a bit troubling however, is that this Amendment was tacked on at the last minute, and it was completely necessary to get the bill passed through the House.  So taking away a lower class woman’s right to have a very personal medical procedure, and forcing them to either go through a bureaucratic nightmare, or explore “alternative” abortion methods, was the deal breaker for many Democrats?  Too many times, our politicians treat women like they are second class citizens and fail to realize the outcomes of their actions.  Through a bill that contains many historic reforms, it looks like we may be taking a step backwards in the case of female reproductive rights.

Here is a link to Planned Parenthood’s condemnation of the Amendment.

Filed under: Political Pondering

What are we buying with this debt?

This is the second post written by Tim.  He has been a big supporter of the site, and hopefully he will become a regular contributor. (ed. note)

National debt is something which the United States has had since its founding. From the very start the United States was indebted to foreign nations for assisting in the finance of our war for independence against the British. In fact there has only been one time, in the illustrious history of the United States, where we were fully debt free, with a $0 balance. This was in 1935 under President Andrew Jackson. This also is in part blamed for an economic slowdown in the ensuing years, as well as one of the few occurrences of deflation in the US economy. Thus furthering the debate of whether or not having debt can in fact be healthy.

In a recent New York Times article, they opened that…

“The Obama administration said Friday that the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year that just ended was $1.4 trillion, nearly a trillion dollars greater than the year before and the largest shortfall relative to the size of the economy since 1945.”

 

The debt went from $459 billion in the 2008 fiscal year, to $1.4 trillion in the 2009 fiscal year. The chief causes for this are obviously the stimulus package, as well as the recession which started at the dawn of the 2009 fiscal year. Compounding these two issues, one increasing expenses the other lowering income, it is not hard to see how there was such a large jump.

 

Looking at the history of the United States debt as a percentage of GDP, there are key historical points responsible for the sudden jump in debt. The American Revolution contributed to early debt, the Civil War caused the debt spike of the 1860’s, World War I for the early 20th century, World War II for 1940’s, and the end of the Cold War for the 1980’s. What is the great goal for the debt of the 21st century? What will the big return on our investment? I guess time will tell.

 

Debt at every level, whether it is in a household, or a nation, is properly used when it is taken on to improve future returns. You take on debt in order to pay for college, and then you get a better job which pays it off. Simple. We took on debt to fight the Revolution, and won, so our reward was founding a successful modern republic. We fought the Civil War and kept the country from being divided, spoiling the efforts of the Confederacy to destroy the Union. In World War I we bought a temporary peace, and helped break the stalemate of destruction in Europe. In World War II we stopped two evil war machines, and the slaughter of millions of people in Europe and Asia. The Allies defeated Japan and Germany and the US emerged as one of the two super powers of the world. The arms race of the 1980’s in part led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of its physical symbol, the Berlin Wall. Not to mention leaving the United States as the lone super power of the globe.

 

Now we must ask ourselves, why the debt now? What is the payoff? To me there is not a clear answer. However it is likely that the answer in all of these cases was not clear right away. Some possibilities I came up with are we could free the world of terrorism. Eliminate the Taliban and similar cells making the world a safer place. Maybe we can make Iraq the beacon of hope in the Middle East, after eliminating the undoubtedly horrendous regime of Saddam Hussein. Maybe the big payoff will be universal health care, or just getting out of this recession.

 

My thoughts are we either are going to have to get payoffs of some form from all of the above, or we will be scratching our heads somewhere in the future wondering what happened. Debt only makes sense when there is a payoff as a result, and right now we do not have a clear payoff which is the problem. The other possibility of course is that we do not need a big payoff, and debt may not be as bad as it is made out to be. I am anxious to hear what everyone’s thoughts are on what the payoff is, or is supposed to be, and whether or not it is worth it.

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

Is health insurance a right or a privilege?

I’ve been watching C-SPAN all day (exciting, I know), as the House is debating and preparing for a vote on the Democrats big health care reform bill.  Unfortunately, there is so much lying and distortion being thrown around that it has becoming impossible to distinguish fact from fiction.  It’s actually quite an experience to see our elected officials present their opinions and try to convince/scare those that are in limbo to support their position.  It is a bit sad that if you are looking for some insight into the bill, listening to our representatives is not the best way to do it.  I recommended reading the bill, but if you can’t read 2000 pages, you should read this 10 page summary and get yourself educated on it.  Now, I’m not going to preach about the bill, or about the debate between our two parties.  It’s very clear that no matter what Democrats say, or Republicans say, there is something greater than a bill that is separating the parties.  It is more theoretical, much more symbolic of an opinion on the role of the government, and the role of individuals in a greater society.  There is a real question that everyone is afraid to ask that will reveal the core beliefs of those that are liberal, and those that are conservative.  What we all need to think about in order to formulate an educated opinion is to figure out what side we are on, is health care a right, or a privilege?  If you can answer this question as a right, you support the bill, as a privilege, you’re against it, it’s that simple.

I cannot even begin to imagine how difficult it is for American’s without health insurance, or American’s that are denied coverage because of their insurance or pre-existing conditions.  My own personal, and very diminutive story about the health insurance industry happened to me recently.  I have been having some chronic back pain, and my doctor suggested that I try a prescription anti-inflammatory to try and alleviate the symptoms.  However, my insurance (one of the best in the country) told me that they would not be willing to pay for it because it is too expensive.  They “suggested” that I try these lesser alternatives, and if they don’t work, then they will think about approving the original medicine.  My doctor told me that this is a common story, and that it would take months of paper work and red tape to cut through to get the medicine they prescribed.  Therefore, I had to take the lesser medication, and my pain has not subsided.  I can’t fathom what someone with a deadly illness has to endure to get the medicine that they truly deserve.  Does health care have to be all about the money, just like every other competing industry?

How bad is it for American’s who have trouble buying, and maintaining health insurance?  Imagine being laid off from your work, struggling through bankruptcy, getting dropped from your provider, having your world turned upside down because of your personal health.  You are struggling to find a job, you have to use money you have been saving to cover doctors visits, or you can’t even go to the doctor because you cannot afford to pay for it yourself.  The treatment that you have been taking for years is all of a sudden suspended because you lost your job and coverage.  Why should anyone be living with this fear of losing it all, this uncertainty about your health, your future, and your families livelihood?  Through any illness that an individual or a family goes through, all they want to be able to say is, “we’ll be ok…we’ll be ok.”

Health insurance is a privilege. Health insurance should be subjugated to the open market, and people should be free to purchase or not purchase whatever plan they want.  Nobody should be forced to buy into something, and nobody should be given anything for free that will burden taxpayers.  Those that can afford the best coverage should get it, those that cannot, may need to settle for something less, this is just the nature of capitalism and it works.  Health care will remain at its highest level of effectiveness when medical personal are not forced to dumb down their work to a universal level.  Those that are healthy will have a better life, those that are not, unfortunately will have to spend more of their own money to improve it.  It is an honor and a privilege to be able to afford quality health care, and it is something every American should strive for to protect themselves and their family.

Health insurance is a right. Health insurance should not be subjected to the law of “survival of the fittest.”  Nobody should be denied health care due to their genetic disposition to illness, or the surprises that we all encounter in our lives that lead to doctor visits.  The science and technology is there, we can fight off and prevent so many tragedies, and it is a moral imperative that we use what we have, and give it to each and every American on a need be basis.  The government’s role is to protect and serve its citizens, and to create an atmosphere where you have the right to pursue what you want in your life, without the risk of losing it all due to your health.  The access to affordable, quality health care is an undeniable right, we are all in this together, and we must support each other any way we can.

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

How will the health care bill affect you next year?

Here is a release from the House leadership (prepared by Nancy Pelosi) that lists 14 key provisions that will take effect almost immediately if the bill (Affordable Health Care for America Act) passes.  Here is a link to the link for the file….

1. Begins to close the Medicare Part D Donut Hole – Reduces the donut hole by $500 and institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, effective January 1, 2010.

2.  Immediate help for the uninsured until exchange is available (interim high-risk pool) – Creates a temporary insurance program until the Exchange is available for individuals who have been uninsured for several months or have been denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions.

3.  Bans lifetime limits on coverage – Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage.

4.  Ends Recissions – Prohibits insurers from nullifying or rescinding a patient’s policy when they file a claim for benefits, except in the case of fraud.

5.  Extends coverage for young people up to 27th birthday through parents’ insurance – Requires health plans to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice.

6.  Eliminates cost-sharing for preventive services in Medicare – Eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program

7.  Improves help for low-income Medicare beneficaries – Improves the low-income protection programs in Medicare to assure more individuals are able to access this vital help.

8.  Provides new consumer protections in Medicare Advantage – Prohibits Medicare Advantage plans from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than what is charged in traditional Medicare.

9.  Immediate sunshine on price gouging – Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases.

10.  Continuity for displaced workers – Allows Americans to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.

11.  Creates new, voluntary, public long-term care insurance program – Creates a long-term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.

12.  Help for early retirees – Creates a $10 billion fund to finance a temporary reinsurance program to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64.

13.  Community health centers – Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years.

14.  Increasing number of primary care doctors – Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

Any thoughts on some of the positives and/or negatives that we will see in the next year or so?  Does it sound too good to be true, or is this a huge first step in putting the power back into the hands of the consumers?  It looks like some immediate action will finally be taken to help the uninsured get some type of affordable coverage and treatment as soon as possible.  Once again, this is just the House’s bill, but you can expect to see most of these in the final bill.

Filed under: Political Pondering

what to do with all of this bone marrow…

Everyone has bone marrow, most people need money, most like helping others, and a lot of people have cancer and can’t find a suitable donor, and will die as a result.  Watching Dr. Nancy this morning, the issue of submitting bone marrow for financial compensation came up.  Now the ethical debate here is just about as heavy and challenging as it gets (which is something the medical field is always good for).  Once we start opening up the market to body parts, Pandora’s box may implode, leaving the poor goddess without her namesake.  Let’s look at how the bone marrow registry works first…

 

If you are a relative, or know the patient directly suffering, you can have your bone marrow tested to see if you’re a match.  If you are, and chose to, you can go ahead with the transplant procedure.  This is the best case scenario, and statistically, your family members have the best chance of being a match (the more siblings you have the better).  However, it is no guarantee that a match will be found, therefore, the patient must go into the bone marrow registry where individuals can voluntarily join.  The Be the Match Registry, is set up for bone marrow transplants and PBSC (cells from circulating blood) transplants to search for potential matches.  You can check out their website for guidelines, but basically, you sign up, submit cheek cell swab or blood sample, and just wait for someone to contact you.  After that, there are physical tests, meetings with doctors, and the eventual legitimate surgical procedure (which is not the most pleasant thing to say the least), and then the recovery period and follow up.  Not all procedures are surgical however, sometimes the same results can be achieved through a non-invasive peripheral blood stem-cell donation.

 

Diep Tran over at the OC News has written a couple of interesting articles detailing bone marrow donor issues in the US…

More people need transplants than those who receive them. Out of 10,000 who sought transplants in 2008, only 4,300 received them. This low numbers is due to disparities in access to health care, lack of referrals for such treatment options and the inability to find matching donors.

If you are a member of a minority race and ever in need of a bone marrow transplant, you have less than a 30 percent chance of finding a matching donor because tissue types are the most similar between people of matching ethnicity.

 

Needless to say, you are beating the odds if you find a successful match on the donor registry.  And of course, finding a match is only the first step, there is no guarantee that the transplant will even work!  However, shouldn’t the actual procedure and results be the only daunting aspect, the only part of the process where the patient has to wait and hope?  It is a tragedy that so many patients die every year because they cannot find a suitable donor, or because their insurance and/or race hinders them.  We are talking about human beings, life and death, and mostly children.  What can we do about this?  How do we get more people to register, more minorities to register, how can we flood the market with potential donors?  Well…we can open it up to the market.

 

Is this ethical?  Clearly, this is up to you, and people may need to search pretty deep in their hearts to find an answer.  However, I think if you know someone who has been afflicted with blood cancer, and they were not able to find a donor, this decision may be easier for you.  Is there harm in creating a financial incentive for selling your bone marrow?  If a market were to be created the hope is that it would be controlled, so people are not posting on craigslist to negotiate their own prices.  Continue to go through the registry, but just reward people who decide to sign up.  The insurance companies may have a fit, but it’s their job to protect us.  How many more lives could be saved this way?  No doubt, donor match rates would go up, and save countless lives in the process.

 

The ethical question however is, where does it stop?  The most extreme example would be, people who are struggling for money end up selling off their organs to make ends meat, and hopefully, this day never comes.  Right now, people voluntarily donate blood, and there is not too much of a problem with shortages, but sperm and egg donors can profit from their submissions.  Why should bone marrow be any different?

 

The Registry takes pride in the fact that they are for volunteers only.  It is a truly selfless act, it takes a very special type of person to be willing to go through a procedure like this, the willingness to risk their own life to save someone they don’t even know.  But is this even necessary?  Should it be about saving as many lives as possible, or only saving them the “moral way.”  The fact of the matter is that there are not enough “good” people out there that are willing to do this for free.  Can you blame them?  I don’t think you really can, it’s their body, their choice.  Cancer patients don’t need good people though, they just need people, they just need to find a match.

 

The frustrating part, is that the technology is there, the market would be willing to submit their marrow, but the ethical ramifications are holding us back.  Yes, it is frustrating, but you can also make the argument that it is necessary, that our ethics can put a check on our ambitions.  Is this one of those situations, or are we just too afraid to change?  The sad truth is, that as we debate this moral dilemma, thousands of patients are searching through the registry, and realizing just how tiny a list of ten million donors is.

 

 

 

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

guns don’t kill people, bullets do

update 10/27: feel free to go click happy for my sake on this link to this article at the Baltimore Examiner.

 

I’ve been thinking for a long time about how to approach this topic with as much of an open mind as possible.  I understand the important historical and social attachment that so many people in this country have for firearms.  Our nation was formed through war, and the belief in independence, self defense, and an acceptance of a wide spectrum of values.  The unyielding attachment to traditional values that many conservatives have in the United States, may at times hinder change, but it is admirable in so many ways.  The love and dedication to preserve what has been American since our inception is as patriotic as it gets.  What I am about to propose may seem radical, but I think it is a policy that would pacify both ends of the spectrum, while still preserving our traditional values and need for guns.

It would be ignorant and prejudice of me to have the belief that guns should be abolished.  The progressive movement may be gaining power, but we are an inherently conservative nation that cannot be forced to make rash social decisions in a short period of time.  You cannot convince someone to throw their guns away and forget about the role they have served throughout a families history.  But can’t we just get rid of the homicidal aspect of guns?

Let’s define the role of the federal government in a very general, traditional way.  To protect its citizens so that they can pursue liberty and happiness and wealth without fear.  The state has an obligation to try and create an atmosphere of peace and stability, and part of this, is making sure people don’t get murdered.  I invite you to look through these statistics (chart above) on homicides with weapons provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Here are some of their findings for 2005…

Homicides with guns = 11,346

Knife and blunt objects = 2,818

Other weapon = 2,528

Here is a look at the United States Crimes rates in 2008, via the disaster center…

Population = 304,059,724

Violent Crimes = 1,382,012

Murder = 16,272

If there were a way to potentially stop 11,000 murders a year, doesn’t the state have a responsibility to think about taking action.  The solution?  Put a national ban on bullets for any personal gun ownership.  Everyone can keep their guns if they feel an attachment to them, but they will no longer have the ability to kill someone with them.  However, there need to be some exceptions…

1.  Bullets for hunting are allowed, but bullets must be purchased from    designated sites where it can be assured that no bullets leave the hunting grounds.

2.  Shooting ranges can remain in business, but no bullets can be brought into or out of the facility.

These are the only two logical things I can think of, where bullets should be allowed.  However, the argument of self-defense is a very compelling one.  Some feel like the state, and the police force cannot truly protect the public, and that we are entitled to defend ourselves if need be.  My response, if we took the bullets out of the guns, wouldn’t the state be better equipped to protect?  Maybe for a period of 5-10 years, the police force could be armed, as the process of eradicating bullets from the public occurs, but after that, why have them at all?  There is reason that violent crimes in the UK are drastically lower than ours.  There is a reason that students there do not have to fear school shootings.  We may not ever get rid of our guns, but it’s not the guns that kill people, it’s the bullets.  Is this even feasible?  Would the state have to raid houses and get too controlling?  Clearly, I do not have an answer to this, and maybe I have too much hope that people would willingly give up their bullets.  But here are some questions I pose to you.  Would this be yet another example of the state trying to control behavior?  Or does the state have a responsibility to try and cut down a fraction of homicides?  Would ridding the country of bullets, but still allowing guns, pacify those who value the history of their guns?

Unfortunately, we live in a country where people are often afraid to walk the streets at night.  Would this solve that problem? No… But would it help?

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

a bit of cool news

So I applied for a job at the Baltimore Examiner to do some freelancing, and they “hired” me a few days ago.  I decided to use my soda tax post from about a month ago, and as of this morning, it went live on the Examiner’s site and is the lead story in the politics section.  The thing is, I get paid depending on the amount of traffic to the story. Here’s the link, feel free to give the story another read if you haven’t already done so.  Thanks!

Filed under: Quick Hits

thanks for the memories TBS

With the Phillies beating the Dodgers, there will no longer be any playoff baseball games on TBS (they are the ones that know comedy, not drama..duh).  Fox is the only network left, and as the Yankees take on The The Angels of The Angels, we must put TBS to sleep.  Maybe this is just me, but I felt like there were about, oh I don’t know, 8 commercials that ran over and over and over and over again.  Well TBS, in your attempt to brainwash us, I’ve learned quite a bit about life…

1.  If you’re having a party, clearly, there must be guacamole there, because if there’s not, obvi it’s bush league…bro.

2.  Men of a Certain Age looks like a pretty good show, hyping it ADED (all day every day) when it is set to air December 10th, not a great idea.  All I know is that I too now hate the friend who is making out with the young hot girl more now than I did in college.

3.  I started having nightmares in which Ernie Johnson would interrupt my dream and tell me that the dream cannot be completed on my current network, and that it needs to be moved to my sister network, TNT.

4.  There is something magical that has entered the marketplace.  I never knew I was waiting for this, but I now know what I have been missing.  The best part?  Shhhh…..pepperjack sauce….black taco anyone?

5.  If you don’t have an iphone, and you realize your phone doesn’t have any cool shit…there’s a map for that.

6.  If you have an erection lasting longer than 4 hours, something went terribly wrong.

7.  Cat Stevens is a legend, but after the playoffs, I really feel no urgency whatsoever to sing out and be free.

8.  Saiontz and Kirk…um…where the hell did Miles go?

9.  At least there wasn’t a Frank TV ad every 37 seconds.  right?

10.  Chip Caray, you suck dude.  I have never heard a professional, that makes his living on TV, use the word fisted more than you have.  There are only a few things in life that can be fisted, and baseball are not one of them.

11.  Erik Estrada, I feel bad for you.  I’d buy your glasses though because they are sweet.  Eeeeestraaaaaada.

12.  Don’t always assume you have a going problem, because you may in fact have a growing problem instead.

13.  Nick Punto is a baseball player…wait…isn’t that obvious, why did TBS keep reminding me of that?  Hmm…Weird.

Filed under: The On-Deck Circle

Why did we fight?

I think you can see that I have discovered that I can embed videos into my posts.  The novelty should wear off soon.  Nevertheless, I think we can all learn a little something from this American hero…

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

there’s a rep for that

Watch the video first, it’s not too long.  Below is a list of quotes that have drawn attention to each of these Republican Representatives.  The point I am trying to get across here, is that those in the GOP that are the most outspoken and garner the most attention, are the most radical, and as a result, paint the GOP as a radical party.  Whose fault is this?  That’s your call.  Sorry for the length.

Rep. Joe Wilson (SC)…

“You lie!”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX)…

“We’ve been battling this socialist health care, the nationalization of health care, that is going to absolutely kill senior citizens.  They’ll put them on a list and force them to die early. (link)

A speech from Gohmert about his objection to the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill…

“If you’re orientated towards animals, bestiality, the, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or an bias be held against you for that.  Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality…pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations…It happened in 1920 and 1930′s.  Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger.  And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America.” (link)

Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill)  In reference to a conversation he had with the Chinese government…

“We need to build trust and confidence with our number one creditor…That the budget numbers that the US government has put forward should not be believed.” (link)

Rep. John Schimkus (Ill) – Both quotes are taken from a House panel on CO2 and global warming…

“The earth will end only when god declares it is time to be over.  Man will not destroy this earth.  The eart will not be destroyed by a flood.”

“So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?  So all our good intentions could be in vain.  That we could be doing the exact opposite of what people who want to save the world are saying?” (link)

Michelle Bachmann (MN) (link)…

“I don’t think it has been established yet, as a fact, that global warming is the issue of the day.”

“But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

“She (Nancy Pelosi) is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she’s been trying to save the planet.  We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago.  They saved the planet, we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

“I want people of Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of energy tax”

“Thomas Jefferson told us: ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.’”

“It is the mother of all ironies…that the kids who voted en masse for Barak Obama are the ones being fitted with shackles and chains.”

“Not all cultures are equal.  Not all values are equal.”

“I’m very concerned that he (President Obama) may have anti-American views.”

“This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our writs, be blood brothers on this thing.  This will not pass.” (link)

Rep. Randy Forbes (VA)…

“While America has always welcomed individuals of diverse faiths and nonfaith, we have never ceased to be a Judeo-Christian nation. That small minority could tear references of faith off of every building and document across our nation, but it would not change the fact that we were built on Judeo-Christian principles. Indeed, these beliefs are so interwoven into the tapestry of freedom and liberty upon which our nation is built that to begin to unravel one is to begin to unravel the other.”

Rep. Bill Sali (ID)…

“Studies have shown that there is a statistical link between abortion and breast cancer, an increased risk, and women before they have an abortion should be told.  That’s what I believe.” (link)

Rep. Steve King (IA) – Referring to same-sex marriage (link)…

“If there’s a push for a socialist society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they have to go to, same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation, they want access to public funds and resources.”

“Not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.”

Rep. Lynn Jenkins (KS)…

“Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope.” (link)

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA)…

“Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they’re a member of an elite-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity.” (link)

Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC)…

“I also would like to point out that there was a bill — the hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. This — the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.” (link)

Rep. Trent Franks…

“Obama’s first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers’ money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries…there’s almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that.  We shouldn’t be shocked that he does all these other insane things.  A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can’t do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.” (link)

Filed under: Political Pondering