Comments about ‘House speaker criticizes governor in opening address to Utah Legislature’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 27 2014 12:15 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Springville, UT

A cautionary tale for Lockhart, Herbert and Utah.

In the late 1990's the State of Tennessee dramatically expanded Medicaid to these currently proposed levels. It was done by a Democratic Governor, House and Senate. In fact, the Democrats controlled Tennessee since that state was allowed back into the Union after the Yankees left circa 1870s.

By the early 2000's when one analyzed the budget you saw that this expanded Medicaid program was on tract to bankrupt the state. It was consuming ALL new funding. It was projected that within a few years they would even have to cut Education, roads, etc to fund at the dramatically promised levels of an expanded Medicaid. Mind you, this as state funding across the board was increasing! This program, called Tenncare was consuming everything.

With this on the horizon it should be noted that a Democrat Governor and a 2/3 Democratically controlled House and Senate did the only thing that could be done to save the rest of the budget...they ended Tenncare and cut Medicaid back to the previous levels. This literally saved the Tennessee budget.

Other states have been down this road before. Utah should listen to this non-partisan lesson.

Springville, UT

One other note about Romney-care in Massachusetts. Something that only the very conservative were willing to criticize during this last election is the true impact. The Left wanted to praise it while moderate Republicans ended up ignoring the issue. Again, very relevant to this current discussion.

Romneycare and Massachusetts currently has some of the lowest uninsured rates in the nation. They also have the highest premiums and the longest wait times in the nation to get care. There wait times are on par with Europe. And with the most expensive premiums in the nation they also receive large subsidies from the Federal government to offset those premiums. In short, without those Federal subsidies their premiums, already the highest in the nation would be much higher. Some think tanks suggest upwards of 40% higher!

As we go down this road there are many warning signs. We've already passed by many, which promised us premiums would go up, not down; we would not be able to keep our doctors, etc, etc.

This issue between Lockhart and Herbert is likely the financial issue for Utah's future economy, jobs and taxes for the next decade.

Salt Lake City, UT

To those who fret and fantasize about the single mother, raising child/children working two jobs with no health insurance would sign up to donate a fixed amount of money, after taxes toward a fund to pay for her alleged health care the problem would be solved.

This aforementioned person may not have insurance but does have access to health care service. There is a difference. ER's will treat emergency conditions. there are clinics that treat problems.

As to the Speaker's political future, who knows? Should make for good press and fun lines for Pignanelli and Webb on Sunday.

To those who opine why not vote "D". Let me count the ways....



"The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is nearly a copy of Romney Care (MASS Health) and was modeled after an early 90's Republican model for providing health care to citizens."

There are several KEY differences between ACA and what Romney did. First and foremost, Romney's was a STATE program that was LOCALLY driven. IT had been reviewed and approved before being passed. Remember Pelosi's words "we have to pass (ACA) to see what's in it?" None of that garbage with Romney care.

Second, Romney's people actually created a system that worked, ie no website glitches on a nine figure website.

Third, Romney's plan empowered the consumer, ACA takes power away from the end user.

I could go on and on. I'm sick of people comparing Romney's plan to ACA. If they were so similar, then you should be praising Mitt for creating Obama's dream system.

Sandy, UT

The opening day speech of the leader in the House of Representatives should have been about identifying the critical state issues that need work, and possible solutions. Using the speech to launch her campaign for governor was showing her true colors - she's a politician instead of a stateswoman. Poor judgment and poor taste.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Jim Matheson for governor. Better than either the extreme right-winger or the even more extreme right-winger.


Do our politicians understand that Obamacare only helps those 100% to 400% at or above the poverty line?
That is to say, a single woman making $18,000 is at the line and qualifies for tax credits toward insurance premiums. But, if she is a single mother, she is below the poverty line and does not qualify for insurance assistance. That's the doughnut hole that is supposed to be covered by Medicaid but not in Utah to make a political statement. "Return to sender"

Stop hurting children to play your political games.

Farmington, UT

@ A Quaker--
There is indeed a great deal of evidence that there is a state interest in natural marriage, far too much to cite in my 210 words here, but if you're sincerely interested, I recommend as a starter the study of "Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (National Marriage Project, Institute for American Values, 2011.)

In the meantime, I thought it quite interesting that one of the chief arguments in the case as presented to Judge Shelby was that "The right to get married would be a very hollow right if it did not include the right to determine, to choose, to make the decision about who you're going to marry. I mean it's great to have a marriage right, but if you can't marry whom you want to marry, what value does that fundamental right or privacy interest have?" In other words, what is proposed is that anyone could marry anyone. Perhaps you could take a moment to demonstrate a clear state interest in allowing anyone to marry anyone...no limits.

Provo, UT

As I suspected, the Lockhart quotes in this article were context-free and devoid of any of the meaning or intent reported by the popular media. Why not judge what she actually said, instead of reading just what some reporter wanted to steer your focus to?

After initial publication, the article was revised to include a link to the actual transcript. Lockhart's speech seems to bear little resemblance to the sensational news reports.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@acerinox said, "Perhaps you could take a moment to demonstrate a clear state interest in allowing anyone to marry anyone...no limits."

We are getting a bit off-topic here, but since you asked:

Firstly, no one said "no limits." It's still only two adult, mutually-consenting, unrelated, legally unencumbered, competent humans.

When two people vow/promise/commit to love and support each other for the rest of their lives, forming a unified household, it's in the state's interest to grant them next-of-kin status, inheritance rights, and household tax treatment. Because, providing legal stability to that household makes it more likely to provide childcare and eldercare for each others' family members, not to mention each other, care that might otherwise become the state's financial responsibility. Stable households are valuable to the state in many ways, economically and socially.

The state has no other interest in marriage. They let marriages dissolve (divorce rate 50%), don't address out-of-wedlock births (41%), let single people adopt, and allow all manner of fertility services. Plus, sterile people can marry.

Provo, UT

Considering the National Democratic party has doubled our national debt in six years--spending over 8 trillion dollars above the crushing amount of taxes the Feds already take in--

Who on earth thinks we should trust a Democrat with anything? I can't think of a single policy the Dems have that would actually help the poor. Enslave the poor? Yes. Help them? No way.

John Locke
Ivins, , UT

Tell the "struggling" out there that there is the possibility of an internet degree, with one year of on campus study in most states. My daughter has six children, and worked and "went to school at night" on the internet and graduated with a degree in education at the age of 36, with all of her children and husband cheering her on. After several years in the school system, and doing off jobs after work, she rose to the rank of assistant vice principal at a top charter school in California and is making six figures. It can be done. Lot of very hard and determined work and effort, and, of course, intelligence. Help is on the way and it is your own self determination to succeed and get away from "Uncle Sugar." Sugar is not healthy for the body and welfare is not good for your self preservation.


Lockhart is right. We can take the easy way out and join Obamacare now and down the road we will have funding issues, Federal strings attached, fewer doctors, and poor healthcare. Utah is rated as one of the top states for healthcare delivery. There is no reason to dismantle something that is working. And to those that are unemployed or needy, Obamacare is not the answer. Tell me how the Fed is doing delivering mail, or with social security ponzi scheme or any other gov't program. Incompetence at best criminal at worst.

play by the rules

Agree with the Speaker on this. The Governor has lost his way and is doing it more and more every day. Wish I had voted for Philpott in the primary.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments