Southington Politicians Mixed on Healthcare Mandate Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday that upheld President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act will have a direct impact on residents throughout the nation, but in Southington the ruling has been met to mixed reactions from local politicians and legislative candidates. 

State Rep. Rob Sampson, R-Southington, expressed concerns that while the act aims to make healthcare affordable across the nation, the plan will place restrictions on the free market and create “unsustainable costs” by creating a single-payer system.

“I am fired up; I am upset by the decision,” said Sampson, a ranking member of the legislature’s insurance committee. “I agree with that we need to address healthcare on both a state and national level, but I’d want to see it done through the existing free market system. This is not ‘free’ in my mind.”

The 193-page court ruling release Thursday, which is available in it’s entirety on the Huffington Post, supports a government-regulated system that both restricts the way companies are able to operate and places limitations on products available, Sampson said.

Let Patch save you time. Get great local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone every day with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.

Local residents will still have access to purchasing private insurance, but the infusion of a single-payer government system will create competition that will adversely affect the market and could actually lead to an increase in healthcare costs, Sampson said. In addition, the infusion of government regulations and non-profit could lead to a reduction in jobs in the private sector, he said.

“Shareholders of these private companies will now be forced to compete with non-profit government,” he said. “Government should not be competing with private business. Nothing in the constitution says this is a good idea. This is not the way government is supposed to do things.”

Sampson also cautions that just because he doesn’t agree with the decision, it doesn’t mean that he is against reform or helping people.

“I am tired of being vilified. Just because I am against Universal Healthcare does not mean against helping people,” he said. “I just believe that what we need is more competition and availability. If you look at something like Laser eye surgery, there is tremendous competition and it’s driving the market place and lowering costs. That’s an example of what we need.” 

But others, including Democrats David Zoni and John “Corky” Mazurek disagree.

Mazurek said Thursday that he is not an expert and doesn’t know if the act can be considered “a home run,” but he believes the court ruling helped the country take a step in the right direction.

“From my perspective, I’ve always felt that healthcare needed to be done on national level,” said Mazurek, candidate for the 16th State Senate District. “Universal health care is extremely expensive and for states to address the issue on their own, it just wasn’t going to be possible.”

Mazurek and Zoni, candidate for the 81st Assembly District, each said it also prevents rising healthcare costs related to immediate emergency care needs caused by uninsured residents.

Zoni said a similar system, already in place in Massachusetts, has seen growing success. The system reduces costs to residents, but also requires people to be insured in order to prevent these emergency costs from falling on those already paying for health insurance.

“There are healthy young men out there, in their 20s and they may believe that due to the costs, it’s a good idea to opt out, but the minute they get sick or are in an accident, they end up in the E.R. without insurance,” Zoni said. “If they don’t have the insurance and don’t have the money, who is going to pay? Right now the doctors and hospitals are raising fees and it’s leaving others to pick up the tab.”

State Sen. Joseph Markley, R-Southington, said while he is disappointed and believed that the act as presented was unconstitutional, he respects the decision and government now needs to turn it’s focus to working with the plan to make it work.

“It has certain state implications and today’s decision, the act has not been stopped so we will be continuing down that road,” he said. “Right now we need to focus on finding the most effective way to work together and implement what we now have. Preparations are being made to move on.”

With many split on the decision, Republican Cheryl Lounsbury, Southington Town Council Member and candidate for the 81st Assembly District, said there needs to be a focus by both parties to work together and find a middle ground to truly help the people of Connecticut and across the nation.

Lounsbury said when she read through the decision and in reviewing the healthcare plan, she had “mixed emotions” regarding what it could mean.

“I really don’t think the government has ever taken over anything cost effectively or efficiently,” she said, “but I also realize that there are a significant number of people, over 30 million, without affordable access to healthcare.”

Lounsbury said the focus has been on whether to have government insurance or private healthcare, but she believes with the court ruling now made, focus must turn to creating a partnership between the two entities.

The longtime Southington politician said private businesses are currently making too much money and are not offering plans in an effective way, but to have an effective change, it can’t shift entirely to government regulation either.

The answer, she said, will be in creating an effective system of checks and balances.

“We can’t have a system in place that eliminates those with pre-existing conditions, but the government simply can’t offer insurance without asking for anything either,” she said. “The decision is made, we are moving forward but there is still a lot of work to be done.”

Make sure to like Southington Patch on Facebook or follow on Twitter for breaking news, daily updates and more!