(Members are: Allen Quist, candidate for Congress;  Brian Davis, MD, Rochester; Scott Wright, MD, Rochester;  Paul Double, Winona;  Katie Jones, pharmacist, Mankato;  Michael Van Norstrand, MD, La Crosse, WI., others to be added)

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Quality healthcare is a keystone of the Minnesota 1^st District’s economy and is a major reason that living and working in southern Minnesota is such a privilege.  It is no surprise that the state of our nation’s healthcare system, together with the state of the overall American economy is of highest concern to 1^st District voters.  The recently passed Senate healthcare bill, now known as Obamacare, clearly fails to recognize the excellence that American medicine has achieved, ignores the real problem of rising healthcare costs, fails to address the greatest needs we have in our healthcare delivery system and prevents competition in a free marketplace from playing any significant role in building an equitable American healthcare system.  Allen Quist believes this is unacceptable and will work to repeal Obamacare which is clearly meant as a stepping stone to a nationalized healthcare system.  In its place, Allen Quist and fellow Republicans will engage healthcare leaders from our region to create a truly reformed, free market, healthcare delivery system with transparent goals that:

• Enhances competition in the health insurance industry nation-wide and drives down cost
• Provides a secure foundation of healthcare available to the low-income uninsured and the uninsurable with pre-existing conditions
• Prevents Washington bureaucrats from distorting the delivery of healthcare through backroom deals and self-serving rules that usurp personal rights and State constitutional authority
• Provides for non-partisan management of Medicare and Medicaid that guarantees that healthcare will be available for our senior citizens
• Decreases the burden of unjustified litigation against healthcare providers driven by trial lawyers seeking only their own personal gain
• Has a cost which is contained and is visible and does not increase the power of the IRS as an enforcement agency
• Rewards quality of healthcare delivered, not quantity of services charged to patients
• Does not make insurance companies or the government the arbiter of quality healthcare

The Democratic incumbent has voted with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for a politically driven system that will put our children trillions of dollars in debt in a European-style social system.  Allen Quist knows what he believes and will speak for us with a powerful voice in Congress.  As the campaign to replace the Democratic incumbent advances toward the general election, Allen will present specific proposals to accomplish each of these goals.

* * *

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Mankato, MN) – Allen Quist is calling on Congressman Tim Walz to reject the strategy being concocted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to “pass” health care without her members ever voting on the bill. It’s accurately called the “Slaughter Strategy,” after Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, who dreamed it up, Quist said.

Quist says it works like this: The House would pass a rule that proclaims that the Senate Health Care Reform bill that passed on Christmas Eve is “deemed” passed in the House without members ever actually voting on it.

The bottom line, says Quist, is that Pelosi is set to declare the Senate Bill to have “deemed to have passed” when it did not actually happen—she is set to say the House effectively passed the bill when it wasn’t even voted on.

Quist notes that our Constitution, Article I, Section 7, states: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes Law, be presented to the President of the United States;”

This statement in our Constitution clearly means, according to Quist, that, to become law, a bill must pass the House and the Senate and must do so in exactly the same form. By the words: “shall have passed the House of Representatives” is meant to have actually passed, not just “deemed to have passed.”  Our Constitution does not allow “deemed to have passed” as a genuine method of passing law, Quist said.

Quist also said, “All members of Congress have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They have not taken an oath to blindly support Nancy Pelosi. That should make the choice before our lawmakers remarkably simple. Charles Krauthammer wisely said that national decline is a choice. Reaffirmation of freedom is a choice, as well. Members of Congress who vote yes on a fraudulent rule such as this demonstrate contempt for our Republic and for freedom. Let us hope and pray that members of Congress choose wisely.”

###

Contact:  Brad Biers 651-261-2182

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Mankato, MN) – First District Congressional Candidate, Allen Quist, is calling for an end to what he calls, “the unethical practice of using earmarks to spend taxpayer money.” Quist explained that for this current fiscal year alone, members of both parties have obtained 9,499 earmarks worth $15.9 billion.*

Quist says that earmarks are an abuse of the legislative process because they spend taxpayer money without taxpayers having a genuine say on how that money is spent. “There are no open public hearings on earmarks,” Quist said.

Quist said he is outraged by Congressman Tim Walz’s encouragement of citizens and other groups to bring him earmark requests. “This comes about as close to buying votes as you can get,” Quist stated.

Quist said that asking citizens to participate in an  abuse of governmental process, as Mr. Walz is now doing, is reason enough to look elsewhere for a First District Congressman.

In addition, explained Quist, the federal government is now spending $3 for every $2 it is taking in as revenue. “Balancing the budget obviously doesn’t mean much to legislators who use earmarks,” Quist said.

Quist added that Walz’ comments that “Congressional earmarks do not add to the federal deficit” is complete nonsense and is typical of the fantasy-world that too many legislators live in. Quist echoed the words of Ronald Reagan who said the problem with liberal lawmakers is, “they know so much that isn’t so.”

*Roll Call, March 8, 2010, by Tory Newmyer, Roll Call Staff

* * *

Contact:  Brad Biers 651-261-2182

(Mankato, MN) – First Congressional District Candidate Allen Quist said Representative Tim Walz should vote “No” on any health care reform bill that comes back to the House for a vote. “On numerous occasions Rep. Walz promised to represent the people of the First District,” said Quist. “The voters are overwhelmingly opposed to what the Washington politicians are putting together on health care,” Quist added, “and they deserve to have their voices heard,” he said.

Quist said he rejects Walz’s argument that we have to something, and this means we should pass the current proposals up for consideration. “The ‘do something even if it’s wrong’ philosophy has been rejected by the people here,” said Quist.

A major concern of former Minnesota House member Quist is the huge marriage penalty contained in both the House and Senate versions. “There is no way Mr. Walz can justify discrimination against married people,” Quist said. He added that Rep. Walz has an obligation to inform the public of the shocking marriage penalty hidden in the bill he voted for previously.

“Middle class married persons will bear the brunt of the huge financial burden of this health care legislation,” Quist said.

“Real health care reform,” said Quist,” includes solving the malpractice litigation problem along with more competition and flexibility for insurance companies. People’s free choices, along with genuine competition, will be central features of real reform,” he added.

Quist said that if he is elected this coming November, and if the current health care bill has passed, replacing it with real health care reform will be one of his top legislative priorities.

###

It’s been well-documented how PelosiCare would harm seniors and taxpayers. But what has not been discussed is how the bill would punish married couples. Consider this:

The House Democrats’ health bill (H.R. 3962) would set the maximum health insurance premium amounts that low and moderate income individuals and married couples could pay each year. These families and individuals would be eligible to receive so-called “affordability credits,” which would cover the difference between the actual cost of health coverage and the cap on premiums. Sounds good, right?

Well, not if you are a married couple.

House Committee on Ways & Means Republicans

(Mankato, MN) – First Congressional District Candidate Allen Quist said Representative Tim Walz was wrong to vote to raise our nation’s debt ceiling to $12.8 trillion.  “You can’t run a country on debt,” Quist said.

The measure passed by a thin majority in the U.S. House of Representatives with a total of 218 votes.  “Walz cast the deciding vote on this bill that will allow even larger deficits,” Quist explained.

$12.8 trillion in debt equals more than $42,000 in debt for every American.  “Our lawmakers are like out of control kids with credit cards who don’t realize somebody has to pay the bills,” Quist said.

Quist added, “These big spending lawmakers will be back in February to raise the debt limit again.”

Quist said that controlling federal spending is his top legislative priority.

Marriage Penalty in the U.S. House and Senate Health Care Bills

(Mankato, MN) – “The House and Senate Health Care bills contain a huge marriage penalty for the American middle class.” Allen Quist said today.

Following is the complete statement by Allen Quist on the marriage penalty:

“There is a huge middle class marriage penalty hidden in the House and Senate health care bills. The penalty becomes evident by evaluating questions like the following: How much would two single people, each making $30,000 per year, pay for private health insurance if the Pelosi bill was in effect now? The answer is $1,320 per year for both individuals combined (based on the premium limits and subsidies outlined on the charts below). But how much would they pay for the same level of insurance under the Pelosi bill if they were to marry? Their combined cost would then be about $12,000 a year (the estimated cost for private insurance).

“Health insurance premium costs for two adults with equal incomes if the Pelosi bill was in effect now:

“Once the income of Americans exceeds 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, there are no limits on the premiums they can be charged, and their premiums are no longer subsidized. The poverty level is much higher for two people living unmarried as compared to the same two people being married. That is why citizens in many cases will pay far more for insurance if they are married. Why should married people be subjected to financial discrimination?

“This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360. A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger.

“The Senate bill also creates a marriage penalty, in this case by imposing a new tax on individuals who make $200,000 annually but it also applies to married couples making $250,000 each year. This marriage tax on the affluent, however, is just the tip of the marriage penalty iceberg in the Senate bill.

“The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance. Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance—a penalty of $9,183 for getting married (based on tables available here).

“This substantial marriage penalty applies to persons on individual insurance, but, as the Heritage Foundation’s Bob Moffit said: ‘if an employer has a health care benefits package that is 12 to 13 percent of payroll, and they can solve their problem by paying an 8 percent payroll tax [into the Exchange], I think they’re going to do it,’ (New York Times, 9-30-09). And Howard Dean said that, ‘small business won’t need to buy health care for its employees any more’ (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, 11-29-09).

“Businesses will shed their employees and health care dollars into the Exchange, but the dollars that are paid back out will be directed only to those who make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Those above the Poverty Level will receive none of their previous insurance benefits from businesses. For that reason the new system is income redistribution on steroids.

“ ‘Household’ is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried. The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so.

“The bills additionally contain De Facto salary caps. How much would a married couple pay for private insurance under the House bill if their income was $58,000 per year?  The answer is $2,088. But what if their income increased by $1,000? Their annual premium would then be about $12,000. The economic penalty for going off the subsidized system is so severe that it will be difficult for people to increase their earnings beyond 400% of Poverty Level. The Senate bill works essentially the same way.

“Senior citizens and small businesses have already been identified as big losers in the health care bills. Married citizens in the middle class need to be added to the list.”

Official summary of premium limits and subsidy levels in the House bill*

Federal Poverty Levels now in use:

• Single person = $10,830
• Two person household = $14,570
• Three person household = $18,310
• Family of four = $22,050

400% of Federal Poverty Level:

• Single person = $43,320
• Two person household = $58,280
• Three person household = $73,240
• Family of four = $88,200

*  Chart provided by The House Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor, October 29, 2009.

Media advisory: Allen Quist bio and high resolution photograph available on the About Allen page.

Allen Quist to Run Against Walz for First District Congress

(St. Peter, MN) - Former State Representative Allen Quist has announced that he will run against U.S. Representative Tim Walz for the First District Congressional Seat.  Quist served three terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 1982 to 1988, runs a family farm of 1200 acres with his son Andrew in rural St. Peter, and recently retired as a teacher at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato.

Quist, a Republican, said his message will be simple and straightforward:  “If people like what Congress is doing, they should vote for the incumbent,” Quist said.  “But if they believe, as I do, that Congress is headed in the wrong direction, then I will be the alternative.”

According to Quist there have been three unusually important bills under consideration during this session of Congress: the $787 billion Stimulus bill, Cap and Trade, and the Health Care bill.  ”Representative Walz has been on the wrong side of all three,” said Quist.

Quist emphasizes that government spending is totally out of control.  “Just the Stimulus bill by itself added over $10,000 of new government debt for every family of four in our nation,” he explained.  Quist also said that present Congressional spending trends will almost double our national debt-from 40% of GDP today to 87% of D+GDP by 2020.  Quist says this means, “continued high unemployment and burdening the next generation with a level of debt that will substantially reduce their quality of life.”

“The Cap and Trade bill will add $6,800 per year of higher energy costs for every family of four and the Health Care bill, which is supposed to reduce medical costs, will actually increase total costs by over $100 billion each year,” said Quist.

Quist added that the Health Care bill contains a huge hidden tax on the middle class and will substantially reduce the access senior citizens have to needed health care.  “In terms of costs,” Quist said, “big business is the big winner and the middle class is the big loser.  American citizens of the middle class will be forced to pay the bills.”

“Southern Minnesota voters have been holding Tea Party rallies and contacting Congressman Walz’s office asking him not to support these wasteful government spending bills that force more government control of our lives,” said Quist.  “Congressman Walz continually shows by his votes that he is out of step with the voters of the First District.

###

Media advisory: A high-resolution photo of Allen Quist is available here and on the About Allen page.

Quist emphasized that our goal should be for every United States citizen to have the opportunity for the highest quality health care possible at an affordable cost.  He said, “The best way to improve our health care is by genuine reform of our present system; not by a radical shift to a government-run program.”

Quist said he agrees with Representative Collin Peterson who described the bills now under consideration in Congress as follows: “This is ideology run amuck.” And as Peterson also said, “I have so many problems with this [House] bill I don’t even know where to start.” [http://minnesota.publicradio.org]

According to Quist, “There are only two ways to allocate available resources—consumer choice or government dictates. These bills transform health care in our nation from being primarily a system of consumer choice to being one of government dictates.” “A system of government mandates,” said Quist, “won’t work over the long haul and is out of place in a free society.”

Quist stated that the bills are not about controlling costs. He noted that, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has admitted that putting reasonable limits on malpractice lawsuits would save $53 billion each year—over half a trillion dollars over ten years.” “If this was about controlling costs,” Quist said, “we would start by enacting real reforms concerning these lawsuits. The fact that this matter (tort reform) is off the table clarifies that the real purpose of the bills lies elsewhere.”

Quist said that the House bill’s $1.trillion cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office over the next ten years is another major concern. Quist noted that this is a trillion dollars in addition to the half trillion dollars we are not saving by ignoring the medical malpractice problem. Quist said, “To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there, and after a while it adds up to real money.”

Quist said that the real driving force behind these bills is ideology. “Congress is run,” said Quist, “by people who believe that problems are best solved by the federal government taking over.” Quist added, “Look at what has been happening overall: 1) problems in the auto industry are dealt with by the federal government taking over automobile companies, 2) problems in the banking industry are managed by the federal government taking over banks, and 3) here we go again—problems in the health care system are addressed by the federal government taking over the Health care industry.” “Do we see a pattern here?” asked Quist. “This is all about liberal ideology,” said Quist.

Quist said that at the forums he will outline a number of free market proposals for health care reform which he believes are superior to a government-run system.

Forum Schedule:

• Monday, Nov. 9th
  Rochester Ramada Inn – 7:00 PM
• Tuesday, Nov. 10th
  Mankato Happy Chef – 12:00 Noon
• Tuesday, Nov. 10th
  Worthington Pizza Ranch – 6:00 PM

The public is invited on a first come-first served basis.