A bill intended to add to Gov. Butch Otter’s Senate Bill 1042 by strengthening legislative oversight has won a key block of votes for the most controversial measure of the 2013 session.
A “trailer” bill to complement SB 1042 was introduced by the House Health & Welfare Committee Wednesday morning.
Immediately afterward, 16 House Republicans considered key to the measure’s passage held a news conference to say they were behind Otter’s bill if their companion measure also became law.
The sponsor of the bill and the lead negotiator on the bill was 31-year-old freshman Rep. Luke Malek, R-Coeur d’Alene, who was among at least seven in the group who met directly with Otter on the topic in recent days.
Said Malek: “Our legislation gives us the ability to act in the best interests of our citizens now, while reserving the power to pull the plug on any collaboration if our ability to fight for individual rights is regulated away. We refuse to own Obamacare, but step up without reservation to the responsibility of protecting Idaho sovereignty and individual rights.”
Other freshmen may join the group, organizers said. Malek’s prepared remarks referred to a 14-member group; two were added after he wrote his draft, bringing the total to 16.
The measure puts two lawmakers on the exchange’s 18-member governing board as non-voting members. It aims to ensure the federal government pays for the cost of operating the online insurance marketplace under the Affordable Care Act, allows the state to shut down the exchange and requires legislative approval of fee increases.
There are 31 members of the House freshman class, though two served as appointed lawmakers in the last Legislature. Of the 31, 27 are Republicans. In addition to Malek, the GOP freshman conditionally supporting the state-run exchange are Reps.:
Cindy Agidius of Moscow
Neil Anderson of Blackfoot
Robert Anderst of Nampa
Lance Clow of of Twin Falls
Tom Dayley of Boise
Brandon Hixon of Caldwell
Wendy Horman of Idaho Falls
Clark Kauffman of Filer
Doug Hancey of Rexburg
Steven Miller of Fairfield
Ed Morse of Hayden
Kelley Packer of McCammon
Paul Romrell of St. Anthony
Julie VanOrden of Pingree
Rick Youngblood of Nampa
One lawmaker, House Republican Caucus Chairman John Vander Woude of rural Ada County, voted against introduction of the bill in committee, saying such “trailer” bills are typically introduced after a bill has passed one one or another.
But House Democratic Leader John Rusche of Lewiston said an early introduction of a trailer bill has precedent. “When there is a need for reassurance in one house or another, this mechanism has been used,” Rusche said.
Vander Woude attended the news conference and said he’ll study the measure to see if it might prompt him to end his opposition to a state-run exchange. “These are good additions,” said Vander Woude. “It’s a starting point but I need to be convinced.” Vander Woude said other changes may also be warranted.
Another opponent of SB 1042, Assistant Majority Leader Brent Crane, R-Nampa, also attended the news conference. Crane said he needed time to review the new bill before saying whether it may change his mind. But Crane saluted the freshmen for their effort.
SB 1042 is on the Senate calendar for debate, which could occur next week.
I’d be interested in hearing from the other freshmen about why they *don’t* support this bill.
Tying ribbons on pigs don’t make them any prettier or less smelly.
It’s actually pretty savvy of these freshmen to gang up together as a bloc to refuse to allow themselves to be intimidated by the Tea Party coalition. The next couple of years might be very interesting.
So instead they allow themselves to be intimidated by the Governor? What is the difference?
59% of involved Republicans (by the IDGOP’s own numbers) do not support a state health exchange.
That should be enough of a margin to cause these freshman reconsider their chances of being anything but a 1-term elected official.
I remain concerned over the lack of legislative oversight. First, the legislators are non-voting members. So what power do they really have over the cost of the state exchange and thus whether fees need to be increased?
Second, we’re stuck having to finance the state exchange. The Affordable Care Act says the state exchange must be self-financed by 2015. So, legislators will either have to vote to increase fees to follow the “self-financing” provision of the law or violate part of Section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act. Claiming “legislative approval for fee increases” doesn’t matter because Idaho must ensure its finances the state exchange.
I’m no lawyer, but it appears the state will require insurance companies to pay a fee for the state exchange. And, the Affordable Care Act require the insurance products be reconfigured and approved by the federal Health & Human Services to meet the “qualified health plan” requirements of the state exchange. Then, couldn’t the insurance companies sue the state exchange if the state legislature later fails to finance the exchange as prescribed by the Affordable Care Act?
Third, Section 1311 of the law says no state legislature may not pass a law that “conflicts or prevents … the application of regulations from the Secretary [of Health & Human Services].” Doesn’t that forestall the ability of the legislature to “pull the plug” on the state exchange after January 1, 2015 because the Affordable Care Act says it must be “self-sustaining?”
Thank you.
What do you know, a small glimmer of intelligence lands at the Idaho State House.
Non-voting members provide no oversight and no benefit. Why not remove that useless provision. Unless the legislature appointed board members can vote, then their presence is a waste.
Is this all these 16 up and coming lawmakers could come up with?
Also, just for those of us that legislation, is there a link to this newly introduced trailer bill, or do we need to go digging through the subcommittee calendars?
correction: “those of us that legislation” -> “those of us that read legislation”
No method to edit comments here. Quite annoying.