American midterm elections

‘ “You can literally open the bill and point your finger to a page and say, ‘Here’s something we should go after,’” said Representative Michael C. Burgess of Texas, a Republican on the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. “It’s all bad.” ’ I found the foregoing this evening (the day of US midterm elections) at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-03/republicans-to-take-on-u-s-health-care-overhaul-from-taxes-to-insurance.html. Among other things, I note that Burgess is apparently a doctor. He finds President Obama’s medicare legislation “all bad”. That seems like a political rather than a medical opinion. I expect that there is ample knowledgeable opinion from other medical experts that the legislation is, medically speaking, “good”. I am strongly inclined, therefore, to question either Dr. Burgess' competence, his medical ethics, or both. Regardless of freedom of speech, a medical doctor doesn’t seem to me to have the prerogative of resisting that which is commonly or widely acknowledged to be beneficial to the well-being of many health-care clients.
There seems to be a body of knowledgeable opinion in the US to the effect that some of the Republicans who have been elected, especially to the House of Representatives, embody (to put it politely) some fairly "quirky" positions on important issues. I hope that, in these cases, many of these folks will readily undermine their own credibility by their words and actions, both in and outside the House, thereby causing many voters to become disillusioned with them. If that happens, their initiatives are all the more likely to be stopped in the Democratic-controlled Senate or, in what seems to me to be a last resort, by presidential veto.