Republicans Debate Gambling, Health Care, Voter Attendance Ahead of Primary

Disagreeing over voting attendance, debating the merits of health care reform and finding middle ground on local aid, the Republican candidates for State Representative of the 13^th Norfolk District, John O'Leary and Joshua Levy, took to the First Parish Church to win over constituents.

Former Needham selectman Jim Healy moderated Monday evening's debate, sponsored by the Needham Republican Town Committee, keeping a crisp schedule, but allowing for copious amounts of rebuttal.

Sensing that health care is still an issue on the minds of many Massachusetts voters, Healy asked the candidates what they would do to fix any potential problems related to the 2006 MA Health Care Reform law.

O'Leary cited plusses and minuses to the current system, stating that it provides assistance to those who could not normally afford health care, but that it has "done very little to limit cost increase." He also related that people should not be held to a particular health care provider based on their employer.

"It has no basis in rational thought and it needs to be broken. When you lose your job you shouldn't be at risk of losing your health care," O'Leary said, who also put part of the blame in health reform shortfalls on choices made by Governor Deval Patrick.

Levy charged that health care reform has done much to increase access to benefits, but has not taken into account care or cost.

"(We have to) look at the collusion that is happening between insurance companies and hospitals. This is preferential treatment and this is what is really driving much of the health care costs higher and higher and higher," Levy said.

Levy, throughout the evening, was serious in his demeanor, focused on the question at hand. O'Leary appeared more relaxed, occasionally mixing humor in with his answers.

Moderator Healy provided the candidates with an interesting twist during portions of the debate, allowing both O'Leary and Levy to ask questions of one another. Levy took the opportunity to challenge O'Leary's voting attendance record, which stands at 84%, stating that an 84 would be deemed only a "B" grade in school.

"How can you reasonably accomplish a significantly higher level of achievement than what you've been able to deliver in the past?" Levy inquired.

O'Leary stated that some votes are procedural and that he has checked ahead in the past to see if a quorum has been reached. "Such votes would count as a strike against my record," he said. "But I think that anyone who has served on a volunteer school committee knows the commitment and the time that goes into serving the committee and I'm really proud of the job I've done."

Levy asked for further clarification, asking if O'Leary would skip procedural matters that take place at the State House, "which happen quite often," he said.

"In terms of attendance, the role of being a state legislator is different than the role of a volunteer school committee member," said O'Leary.

Levy chose to question O'Leary's voting record for his second question, as well, asking why O'Leary abstained from voting on the Newman School override last year. O'Leary said that there were parts of the override he agreed with and parts he did not.

"Abstaining is a way of sending a message about how you feel about an override and I didn't want to vote 'no' because I knew that it had to pass," he said.

Levy rebutted, "I really do believe that an abstention is as good as not showing up, which you said you might do in the House, if you're lucky enough to get there. A State Rep. needs to be there at all times and take a stand on issues."

O'Leary quickly defended his record and intentions, stating that he did not care for the "mischaracterization" he was hearing from Levy. "(Abstention) is a vote I've rarely taken," he said, "and I'm proud of the record I have. If elected, I'm going to show up."

Voting record aside, the mood was decidedly light for most of the debate with both candidates opposing the current 6.25% sales tax and both in favor of gambling in Massachusetts.

"We should allow gambling in our state, simply because we already have gambling in our state; we have the lottery," Levy said. "People are free to spend their money as they please. They should be free to go to a casino and spend the money at a casino."

 "Adults ought to be able to dispose of their money as they see fit. Casinos and slot machines are certainly a way to dispose of your money," O'Leary said to laughs in the room.

O'Leary added, though, that "no one should expect (a casino) to bring in significant revenue" and that the idea is a "sign of desperation" on the Democrats' side.

"Beacon Hill doesn't have a lack of gambling problem; they have a spending problem," O'Leary said.

Replied Levy, "We spend a lot, but we borrow relatively even more and that's the bigger problem."

On the issue of local aid, Levy said that the current local aid formula looks at the number of students in a school, but that it should fund for a per capita basis with no distinction between a student in Needham and one in any other town. O'Leary stated that the state budget went up in the last year and local aid went down by 4%, a figure that needs to be reversed.

Asked to identify issues in the towns they could represent (Needham, Medfield and Dover), both candidates identified common themes in each community.

"The three towns are filled with people who work hard, raise their families, follow the rules and are tired of a state government that seems to be sending money and the wrong kinds of messages around those values," O'Leary said.

Said Levy, "These three towns are incredibly self sufficient communities and we need to allow them to be self-sufficient and run their communities as they see fit. We know that every single one of them is capable of doing that."

Editor's Note: Watch the opening/closing statements from John O'Laery and Joshua Levy.