Who’s the Dumbest Man in Congress? I Think We Have a Winner.

(Gohmert photo meme via Little Green Footballs)

Let’s be perfectly clear about this from the beginning. Congress is not “exempt” from Obamacare. The idea that members of Congress are somehow exempt from the law is possibly one of the grossest lies foisted upon the American public in the last several years. Indeed, members of Congress have no choice but to sign up for a health insurance policy through the Affordable Care Act. That’s the opposite of exempt.

And the reason why members of Congress and their staffers have to leave the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and sign up for health insurance through the ACA is because Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) introduced an amendment to the Senate healthcare bill in the Finance Committee and the committee unanimously adopted it with the help of senators John Ensign (R-NV), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The amendment reads as follows:

H.R. 3590: D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

So when Republican members of Congress complain about being forced to sign up for Obamacare, they only have their own caucus to blame for forcing them off a perfectly good government-run health insurance program, the FEHBP, and onto, frankly, a much-less-government-run health insurance program via the exchanges. Specifically, I’m talking about Republican members of Congress like Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) whose stupidity about the law is without limits.

Gohmert is so flaming angry about being forced to sign up for a policy through the exchanges that he’s decided to go uninsured and pay the individual mandate tax penalty for violating the law.

Yes, really.

Back in September he announced that he’s refusing to buy a new insurance plan via the ACA exchanges.

“On January 1st, when millions of Americans will likely lose their employers’ contribution to their health insurance, I will refuse to receive that same subsidy. It also means I will have to pay a substantial penalty or ‘tax,’ but I cannot in good conscience accept the subsidy when so many Americans have lost their insurance altogether because of ObamaCare.”

And yesterday, he elaborated:

“Other people are going to see what I did when I looked into health insurance for my wife and me: that the deductible rate, it doubled, about $3,000 to $6,000, and our policy was going to go from about $300 to about $1,500 a month,” he said in a recent radio interview, according to the Dallas Morning News. “I actually don’t have insurance right now, so thank you very much, Obamacare.”

Okay, a bunch of things on this.

1) “Thanks, Obamacare” is still a meme, evidently.

2) His insurance premium wouldn’t have gone up because the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) created a rule by which the government would continue to subsidize congressional insurance premiums, covering 75 percent of the cost (Thanks, Obama!). That’s the subsidy he’s talking about. But before Gohmert became uninsured he was covered by the FEHBP and the government was already paying 75 percent of his premium! The government. Your tax dollars. And now, suddenly, the exact same government subsidy covering 75 percent of his premium is an unsavory proposition for Gohmert, even though he used to be fine with it and even praised how affordable his plan used to be.

3) Gohmert makes a (taxpayer funded) $174,000 salary. He shouldn’t be strapped for cash to pay for insurance.

4) He’s so dumb! No, he doesn’t have to choose between a plan from the ACA exchanges, which are really menus of corporate insurance companies competing for our business (capitalism!), or no insurance at all. He can, in fact, shop around on his own and buy a plan directly through an insurance company. And those policies will have all of the new consumer protections from the law built into them. If Gohmert is against consumer protections, such as an end to lifetime limits and so forth, he should say so. Republicans happen to be support the ACA’s consumer protections by supermajority margins.

5) So now Gohmert will ostensibly go without insurance, making himself part of the problem; driving up healthcare costs and refusing to participate in the system. Of course, at 60 years old, Gohmert will qualify for that other government-run insurance program called “Medicare” in five years.

You just can’t make this stuff up. He’s opting to risk bankruptcy or worse just to make a ridiculous political point — still pitching a tantrum about evil, evil Obamacare — when he can simply go on demagoguing about the law while fully covered by a privately offered insurance plan that he can easily afford given his salary.

Yep. That’s Louie Gohmert all right. The dumbest man in Congress.

  • mica nkusi

    Gohmert has been a laughing stock ever since he set foot in congress. This guy makes Rick Perry sound like Abraham Lincoln. It’s amazing this guy is a judge. But then again- he is from Texas!

  • James Malenfant

    I don’t know what they are complaining about. The GOP’s prefered health plan for us is nothing then death. They can always go without health care, and pay the penalty. Isn’t that what they expect us to do?

  • Winski

    Gohmert is on the list as DUMBEST HUMAN ALIVE, not just in the US congress…

  • HilaryB

    What about your favorite congressman Steve Stockman? :)

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      He’s crazy.

  • mothernatureearthmom

    and why would millions of Americans lose their employers contributions? Gohmert rode the short bus to school, didn’t he.

  • AskandTell

    I don’t endorse fibs, lies, distortions from either side. But I would endorse a little photoshopping of President Obama with his arm around some of these off-the-wall Republicans. Might be an effective method of their base questioning their loyalty.

    Would love to see a pic of Gohmert and Obama in a big bear hug.

  • Steve Granger

    How can anyone, even Texans, justify voting for this idiot?

    • Nefercat

      They looked around and said, “Yep, Louie’s the smart one. Let’s send him to Washington.”

      (Those in his district (not enough) who did not vote for him of course are not part of this scenario.)

    • undsoweiter

      It doubled the IQ in his home district when he went to Washington.

  • ninjaf

    Is there some public proof that we can independently verify he paid the fine instead of getting coverage, when he does have to pay it? Will he make his 2014 tax returns public so we can see them? Because I would not put it past him to publicly declare that he will choose to pay the fine when, in reality, he is secretly paying his premiums.

  • Christopher Foxx

    So now Gohmert will ostensibly go without insurance, … He’s opting to risk bankruptcy or worse

    I’ve got no problem with that.

  • Eudaimon

    yeah sure, guy. this member of congress, who has spent the last couple of years dissecting the ACA law in order to expose problems besides the obvious one concerning forcing someone to pay for a less than necessary good like health insurance or be penalized, must be dumb. yeah. this article is silly.

    he is trying to make a martyr of himself by paying the penalty, which isn’t necessarily dumb: that penalty being a result of not purchasing health insurance. it isn’t a tax, but a penalty for choosing not to insured. the idea that people should be penalized for not buying something is insane. again, it isn’t a tax, and so the argument of “I am a tax paying american, and i say he’s a bum for not doing his part for this country like everyone else”, from the point of view of personal or social responsibility, cannot be made. also, the existence of the exchange aspect does not make the program capitalist at all. it is competition, but it is controlled via the fact that they have to compete through the exchange program.

    the author mentions that he’s driving up healthcare costs by not participating… what? that is silly. he’s participating either way (by paying or being forced to pay the penalty), and probably lowering costs more because there is less cost of labor if he is choosing not to have them work on his insurance profile. i doubt that getting a check in the mail is more costly than doing the work of earning that check.

    • astrocat96

      I think you’re misunderstanding some parts of the ACA, as well as our economy in general. For example: “also, the existence of the exchange aspect does not make the program capitalist at all. it is competition, but it is controlled via the fact that they have to compete through the exchange program.” While there is indeed regulation of insurance policies offered through the exchange program, that doesn’t mean the program isn’t “capitalist at all” as you suggest. Sure, it isn’t unregulated free market capitalism, but I think history has shown that completely deregulating the economy results in abuses that far outweigh any potential Reaganomics, trickle-down benefits.

      Regarding the ACA in specific, you you seem confused how he drives up healthcare costs for the rest of us if he chooses to remain uninsured. There are a couple reasons for this. First, Louis Gohmert is 60 years old, not someone at his healthiest stage of life. It is fairly likely that he will need to avail himself of the healthcare industry in the near future. As posted by another commenter above, Gohmert is the least wealthy member of Congress, with a net worth in the range of $-215,000 to $-110,000. As such, if he were to need treatment for anything serious (think car accident, cancer, pneumonia), he lacks the financial resources to pay out of pocket. This causes the hospital to depend on government subsidies to help offset the cost of providing healthcare to an individual without the capacity to pay. This means you and I pay more taxes, which adds insult to injury because we already pay his salary and pay for him to be able to get health insurance at a much better cost than most of us are able to get.

      • Eudaimon

        so you are saying that the ACA didnt actually fix the problem that the old healthcare system had when it comes down to who pays for the uninsured, just that it penalizes the uninsured. if having health insurance is supposed to be a legal right, then it should be paid for with taxes. these arent taxes, legally or otherwise, not in the actual law anyway. buying health insurance isnt paying a tax, and neither is paying the penalty for not getting the insurance. and if it is actually capitalist as you have said, then the reality of the law is essentially – forced participation in commerce (which is contradictory to capitalism seeing as the consumer has no choice of opting out and paying no penalty for doing so). the idea that you could have a problem from the perspective of a taxpaying is odd, because paying for health insurance is not a tax, it is purchasing a good/service. you are basically saying that he is burdening others because he’s not supporting the health insurance industry, even though he is still paying the government for not doing so, which apparently isnt going to counterbalance any problems associated with increasing premiums for the insured.

        also, the gov is controlling how the industry operates, which is not simple “regulation” as you have said. it is not the same as making a law stating “this particular business practice is now illegal”, it is a law stating “this is the only way to legally do business in this industry”. they have made themselves the middle man between an industry and the consumers.

    • CL Nicholson

      the author mentions that he’s driving up healthcare costs by not participating… what? that is silly.

      No its not silly, that’s how insurance works. By Louie Gohmert being a grade A fool and opting not to sign up for insurance, he is not only attempting to tilt a windmill and calling a dragon, he would raise your insurance rates anytime he or his family would go to the ER. One of the biggest drags on the healthcare industry are uninsured people.

      When Joe Six-pack shows up to the ED with a broken leg and can’t pay – the hospital has to eat that cost. To make up the difference, the hospital raises its cost on everyone else with insurance – whether it be Medicare or an HMO. Hence the point the individual mandate -by ‘forcing’ everyone to get health insurance, hospitals won’t be force to bill you because someone else got sick without coverage.

      • Eudaimon

        it is a potential problem if he actually does go to the hospital for whatever reason, not one at present. also, if this was one of the same problems of the old healthcare system, then why the hell is it still part of it? the ACA apparently didn’t fix that problem, or at least it puts the cost on the insured, as it did before, but gains money in the form of the penalty.

        • CL Nicholson

          it is a potential problem if he actually does go to the hospital for whatever reason, not one at present. also, if this was one of the same problems of the old healthcare system, then why the hell is it still part of it? the ACA apparently didn’t fix that problem, or at least it puts the cost on the insured, as it did before, but gains money in the form of the penalty

          I will leave alone the idea that 60 year old man doesn’t need to see a doctor regularly or won’t get sick enough to go to the hospital, as that statement is patently absurd.

          Also, you obviously came with just RW talking points and not actual facts or understanding of health economics. One of the primary purposes of the ACA is to come up with a solution to close the gap of ‘ER walk-ins’. The expansion of medicare and individual mandate are the fix for people showing up to a hospital with no insurance, or at least a start towards a fix.

          However, the solution doesn’t work if ignorant Bubbas egged on by buffoons like Gohmert try to avoid getting insurance. The ACA will only fail if stupid people try to opt out of getting coverage – hence raising the cost for every responsible adult. Whether its ACA or single payer, the only way we get our healthcare cost under control is if everyone is vested in the system.

          A politician can’t in good faith willingly try to cripple a policy then complain when the policy failed based upon said crippling. But Gohmert isn’t acting in God faith. He’s just another Tea Party Carnival Barker.

          • Eudaimon

            first of all, him not getting insurance right now does not mean he will not get it in the future. he did not say he was never going to get insurance. neither he nor i ever implied that someone would “never” go to see a doctor.

            RW talking points? i see no facts in your post, just statements akin to “it should work”. what understanding do you show? the costs cannot go down if the system lacks competition. it is just an expanded form of the old corporate system. also, if it is supposed to work, why even give the option of opting out? why offer a way to opt out at all if doing so just makes the problem worse for consumers? why didnt the law actually solve the problem? oh yeah, because lower prices for consumers means lower profits. do you know what an economy is or how it functions at all? according to scarcity. let me walk you through this.

            one way to fix the walk-in problem is not to restrict the insurance options or the supply of care further. completely controlling policies only lessens the consumers ability to choose a good plan, and creates a situation in which insurers dont have to provide better options, because there is no alternative. the costs also keep going up because the insurance companies are forced to insure everyone, regardless of preexisting conditions (high risk). they cannot make money without putting all the regulatory costs of business on consumers.

            the ACA completely restricts what the health insurance companies can do, or could have done if they were made to compete with each other, to provide more affordable insurance to customers. there is no incentive because the demand for care is constantly high and rising while the supply of care is artificially fixed via such regulation.

            so, it basically creates a government regulated oligopoly out of the healthcare industry that fixes (not the good kind of “fix”) the prices of healthcare overall via artificially limiting the supply of available care. this was the original problem with healthcare regulation in the nixon era, continuing into the present. the oligopolistic, corporatist cooperation that the ACA mandates is the reason costs remain high, not the uninsured. medicare is a constant, ever-growing drain on taxpayers and now the entire healthcare industry operates according to this model, guaranteeing that companies get business via providing care regardless of cost, which only increases the cost for the consumer.

            the ACA was passed via an unprecedented use of a “reconciliation” vote (used previously only for small budget disputes), which means that instead of the bill needing a 2/3 majority vote to pass, it only needed a simple majority vote (51%). that purely democratic majority (not one republican vote) got it passed.

            how the hell can you think that it will be on the heads of republicans or anyone else besides the ones who supported the law or the faulty system if it does fail? this is just another way of putting the blame on political opponents. if it fails, it will be on the heads of the lawmakers and officials behind the law, not the ones who opposed it. half of this country didnt even want this law to exist. why be so confident in it if it is so weak? you want everyone to come together and participate? how about we make a law that isnt completely retarded? how about we ask the opposition what problems they see and then consider their side? how about we conceive of a law and system that everyone would actually WANT to participate it, or at least CHOOSE to. dont blame the people who warned you that it would fail if it actually does fail.

          • jsplegge

            Since you’re so against the individual mandate, I suppose you were at the head of the crowd demanding single payer. Right?

          • Eudaimon

            if taxes could cover the expenses, maybe, but the government doesnt really have the scratch to cover it all. having the government pay for everything just makes them borrow/print more money, which devalues the dollar. we’d be paying more in taxes while also devaluing the money we’d keep. for the single payer system to work, we’d have to cut spending/close down a bunch of other government programs. i dont exactly see why healthcare could be seen as an inalienable right, or at least how it would be a right over, say, “the right to eat (nutritional food)” or “the right to not starve”.

            if somehow the government (it makes more sense for the single-payer to be a state gov, not federal gov) could find a way to cover all the medical expenses while also providing high level care, i’d be down for it.

          • jsplegge

            We spend twice as much on health care as your random 1st-world country, and we get worse results. Obviously we’re on a winning path.

            So, single-payer is not affordable? Sure is a bummer, being so much less well off than Canada. Great Britain. France. Norway. Germany. Denmark. Spain. […]

            I’m conflicted on states. What makes a state better than the feds for this sort of thing?

          • Eudaimon

            well, the federal government is already broke and it has other tasks it needs to tend to right now (also, the canadian healthcare system does not provide very good healthcare, regardless of how affordable it is). making it at the state level would allow it to be more contextually focused, more able to effectively manage local costs, which is really what people want. it brings the issue closer to the people it affects and allows it to be viewed by the governing body that has the most experience with the regions, which forces it to be more accountable. there was already a precedent set in Massachusetts when it comes to state run healthcare, as well.

            france, germany, norway etc are very small nations compared to us, and we spend twice as much? of course we do, we spend more on defense than all of them put together. we spend more on everything, but not efficiently, because we do so with federal funds, which forces more debt to accumulate and more inflation, which only raises costs further. having an overarching law doesnt help. the states should form their own programs. a program at the state level will then be able to operate according to the scope appropriate for that state’s means. making the fed gov into a supportive or tertiary role isnt out of the question in cases of economically crippled states, but having the state gov as the primary operator of the program seems like it would be less likely to run into problems and more likely to be able to deal with those problems if they were to arise. it’d also allow other states the option of going with a market based system, if it would be more beneficial than a state run system.

            having so many different states is beneficial because each gets to see which programs are doing well or poorly in the other states. it allows for a greater ability to legislatively innovate or adopt observed innovations.

          • jsplegge

            OK, my bad for assuming you’ve been following this debate for a while. We spend twice as much PER CAPITA than those other countries.

            You can bad-mouth the health care systems in those other countries all you want, but the fact is they get better outcomes and their citizens like them.

            “… we spend more on defense than all of them put together…” Well that certainly can’t be part of the problem, can it? It’s insane.

            “making it at the state level would allow it to be more contextually focused, more able to effectively manage local costs, which is really what people want.” No, I’d say they want more choices than death or bankruptcy.

            I don’t buy your argument for 50 different state programs. 50 different levels of coverage “according to the scope appropriate for that state’s means”, for instance? So if your home address is in state A you live, and in state B you die. Why do we even have a country again?

            I’m really trying hard to understand why spending a federal dollar is evil while spending a state dollar is all puppies and rainbows.

            And please please please PLEASE stop calling it government run health care. It’s not. It’s government mandated & regulated health insurance.

          • Eudaimon

            i dont know where all your assumptions and hostility came from, but whatever.

            by government run healthcare, i mean that the government dictates how the business is to be done. mandating that the people pay something other than a tax is forcing people into commerce with a business (controlling demand). mandating that an insurance company must accept certain customers, regardless of whether or not they would have done so if given a choice, is forcing them into a commercial relationship that they might not have wanted to be in (replacing individual judgement with a guarantee). mandating an entire industry to operate within a certain legislated regulatory framework without allowing any deviation from that framework is thus controlling how that industry is allowed to operate as a business (replacing market controls with gov controls). having all of the current licensing regulations and their costs, time spent at school, and regulatory costs afterwards limits the amount of available doctors and nurses (controlling supply of practitioners). the same goes for drugs waiting for approval by the FDA (controlling supply of medicine). if this doesnt sound like government run healthcare/insurance then maybe government facilitated healthcare might suffice? the mandates affect the insurance and thus the kind of care available.

            i didnt say the healthcare/insurance system in america was good before the ACA was developed. it was terrible, but there is an intellectual split in terms of which system people think is better, a market or gov regulated healthcare/insurance industry. and by mentioning how much we spend on the military, i was pointing out that it indeed has a negative impact on our government’s ability to spend money on these kinds of domestic programs. it absolutely is insane, which is why i mentioned it in the first place. if our federal government had its priorities straight and wasnt being asked to fix everything or do everything, then it could actually do some things well. it is too swamped with new problems and failing programs. people complain to the federal government as if they were praying to a god. the fed gov cannot do all the things people want it to do, and what it can do, they dont have the time or resources to do, not because they are understaffed or underfunded, but because they are expected to do everything.

            im just going to ignore your assumptions regarding what i think about federal vs state spending. i dont think one is evil and the other is “puppies and rainbows”. i think that one is more appropriate and beneficial, while the other is more costly and prone to inefficiency (because using federal money means raising the debt ceiling higher and higher, inflating the national currency more, and neglecting the other various federal programs that are underfunded already).

            just because there are fifty states does not mean that they would all have completely different and intransitive systems. any beneficial legislation of one state would be adopted over any less beneficial one in another state. they would copy each other and improve upon each other’s legislation, which would allow for more kinds of programs to be initially tested, revealing the few programs that would measure up to what we want for the whole country. this would give us a better look at what kinds of systems work the best overall, and then it could be proposed at the federal level in order to ensure that we have chosen an experimentally demonstrable, good program. the idea that we should all be testing the same exact system off the bat is not an efficient way of figuring out the best system for our country. we need to be careful and scientific about this because it is a very serious topic, and letting the states initially decide not only gives us more data to draw from, but also leaves them their liberty to decide what is best for them.

          • Snowstorm

            Canada does not provide good health care? Nonsense! About 4 years ago, I had a kidney stone that had to be removed. About one week after the diagnosis, I was in surgery. Complications arose and I had to have another surgery. Have been fine since…..,wonder what 2 procedures and 3 days in the hospital would have cost me in the ‘States? Wise up, rubes…,the hillbillies that screech about their “freedom” are tools of the pentagon and the armaments industry, who have bought and paid for what passes for politicians in your country. Any civilized nation would have long since laughed Palin,Gohmert,Bachmann, et al out of office. Once a role model for enlightened nations, America, through repeated clownishness and mean spirited greed, has rendered itself an international laughingstock, a spectacle for the nations.

          • Eudaimon

            So advocating freedom is a pentagon-made conspiracy? what’s the solution? Authoritarianism? pffft

            And I’d like more than just anecdotal evidence to back up your claims about canadian healthcare. The general population is nonplussed.

          • Snowstorm

            Well, since I am a Canadian, I think I might have a little better idea than you. Anecdotal? I can give you a dozen other “anecdotes”. Why do you think the snowbirds (retired Canadians who winter in Florida) make damn sure they spend part of the year in Canada and maintain a residence in Canada? Phffffffffft, name 1 Canadian you know that is “nonplussed” (sic), by the health care system?The only thing you know about Canada is what Faux News ( a paragon of truth and objectivity ~snicker~) tells you. We have our idiots (Rob Ford) but at least they are Bozo the clown, Teddy Cruz and Rash Limballs are Pennywise the clown.

  • Betty Eyer

    So, if it is required for Congress and staffers, explain how Senator Reid is getting away with exempting his own staffers? BTW, I’m a Democrat and I don’t understand this. There seems to be a difference of opinion in what the law requires and whether or not there are subsidies for the staffers.

    • AskandTell

      Representative Issa has exempted his staff. I haven’t seen the full list, but there were some that gave reasons and got the exemption. The government pays for 75% of the total cost of the premium in either case.

      • Betty Eyer

        Thanks. I’ve been having right wingers go ballistic on me about that and I have yet to find a reasonable explanation. Nice to know about Issa.

  • Barbara Striden

    Yes, he is dumb, as he certainly has that Bachmann-esque “quality”of simply blurting stuff out without even coming close to thinking about what he’s saying. But what really drives me nuts about him and his right-wing peers is their willful ignorance; if facts make them uncomfortable, they simply deny them. Disgusting.

  • Norbrook

    Given his age and decision to do without health insurance, along with his lack of personal resources, he’s likely to become a candidate for the Darwin Award. Although he doesn’t believe in evolution, evolution might demonstrate its reality by chlorinating the Gohmert gene pool.

  • AskandTell

    How can we persuade Congress to pass a law similar to the Hatch Act that doesn’t allow sitting Congressmen/women to purposely lie and mislead the public about legislation?

    • muselet

      No, no, that would be terrible! A rule like that would render more than half the members of Congress mute!

      Hang on, I know there’s got to be a downside to this. Gimme a minute … Nope, I got nothing.

      –alopecia

  • JustaSlob

    I’m not sure who’s worse, Gohmert, DesJairles or coke-head Radel…
    Dumbass red state moochers.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Gohmert’s nose meet Gohmert’s teeth. He is truly an idjit.

  • MaryJane Mccarthy James

    GREAT! I hope this unhinged nut job ends up owing huge amounts of money for medical bill. Nobody deserves it more.

  • D_C_Wilson

    It’s a shame. The mental health care offered through the exchanges might have done him some good.

  • Margaret McGovern

    Actually, if our congressional representatives are, as the word implies, “representative” of the population of the U.S., there should be some less intelligent ones. I’m guessing a study of the IQ of tea party Republicans would indicate that Rep. Gohmert might, indeed, represent his constituency very well.

    • Horace Boothroyd III

      This idea has been around for a while:

      Way back in 1970, Richard Nixon nominated a fella by the name of G. Harrold Carswell for U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

      The man had little by way of experience, and was not a very good judge. In fact, a whopping 58% of his rulings were reversed on appeal.

      Terrible.

      When the American people- and a whole bunch of politicians- complained about the fact that this man was so obviously, blatantly, completely and totally unqualified to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court… Senator Roman Hruska (Republican, Nebraska) stated, in Carrswell’s defense:

      Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?

  • bethsdad

    What about his family? Are they also not covered?

  • Frederic Poag

    I’ve never actually, sincerely wished cancer on someone… Might be willing to make an exception in Louie’s case.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      That was my first thought too, to wish some horrible disease that would cause him to go bankrupt. How about Bubonic Plague? Then I thought no, I don’t want to be hateful like the Republicans. Guess it is too late.

      • Draxiar

        How about a life of perpetual inconvenience? Always hitting a red light, the restaurant always being out of his first menu choice, paper cuts, stuffy nose, high beams in his rear-view mirror when driving at night, hitting traffic Christie style…things like that.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          LOL You are a sadist! That would be like Chinese Water torture…drip, drip, drip……

          • Draxiar

            In this case I’ll embrace that as a compliment!

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            As it was intended :)

  • POTRZBE

    Given the bar for Congressional dumbness, this guy is REALLY dumb!

  • VeggieTart

    He makes $174K as part of his Congressional salary and no doubt has plenty of money socked away (unlike most people), so he can afford to go uninsured. Not so a lot of people.

    And Nefercat, that’s tinfoil on his head. It keeps all sensible thought from getting through.

    • swiley

      Unless he’s socked away a ton of dough and illegally failed to report it, Ol’ Louie GohDERP is deep in a financial hole. http://ballotpedia.org/Louie_Gohmert#Net_worth

      Maybe his caucus can pull together a fundraiser / food-drive, Walmart-style.

  • Nefercat

    I realize there is not much more than gummy oatmeal with little steamholes clogging up Louie’s cranium, but I wonder how the little missus feels about this. I’m assuming that there is a female homo sapiens willing to have hitched her wagon to his star (?), no wait, hitched her wagon to the underpants he so frequently wears on his head.