The IEA, which opposed the law during this year’s legislative session, offers several reasons why the law is unconstitutional. It argues that it breaks a requirement that legislation stick to a single subject, that it unfairly eliminates an early retirement benefit for teachers and that it terminates existing collective bargaining rights.

The defendants in the case are the state of Idaho, Gov. Butch Otter and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna.

“Really, any way you look at SB1108, a single-subject violation is apparent,” Philip Hostak, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing the IEA said in court.  He argued that since the law covered issues ranging from employee retirement incentives to teacher liability insurance and state funding formulas for schools, it violates the constitution.

“The single-subject rule in the constitution requires that you don’t dogpile different provisions in one bill,” IEA attorney Paul Stark of Boise said.

Deputy Attorney General Clay Smith, speaking for the defendants, argued that legislation needs to relate directly or indirectly to a subject.  He said the goal of the labor law is to reconfigure the relationship between teachers and school boards.

The IEA also argued that the retirement incentive can’t be taken away from teachers, since teachers had a reasonable expectation they could be eligible for it. Hostak said teachers could make investment and life decisions after assuming they could get the early retirement bonus. Two of the plaintiffs in the case, David Graham of Moscow and Teena Marley of Pocatello, are school teachers who requested the retirement bonus.

That bonus amounted to $18,000 to $20,000 in the last school year, according to Department of Education officials.

Deputy Attorney General Michael McPeek said the retirement incentive, created in 1996 to encourage longer serving, higher paid teachers to retire, could be eliminated.  “Legislators continually adapt legislation to the requirement of the time,” he said.

The hearing before Fourth District Judge Timothy Hansen lasted close to two hours. At the end of oral arguments, Hansen said that given the high profile nature of the law, he’ll issue a written decision as quickly as he can.

The number of people in the state without jobs in July was 71,300. It was the 14^th straight month that more than 70,000 Idahoans could not find jobs.

IdahoReporter.com has been comparing U3 unemployment numbers, which are calculated by the state, to U6 numbers, which take into account U3 unemployment numbers as well as those who have given up looking for work and those who are employed part time but would rather be full time.

Treasure Valley Community College economics professor Monte Munn believes the U6 number is a better representation of the true unemployment in the state saying, “U6 is a lot more accurate. U3 greatly underestimates, or understates the real unemployment.”

Taking that into consideration, since the latest unemployment numbers are the same as last month, then U6 numbers would also be similar. Last month’s unemployment numbers using the state’s calculation were around 72,000. That means using Munn’s theory that U6 numbers are the best numbers to use, the number for U6 would also be the same. Meaning that the U6 unemployment numbers are closer to 123,000 in the state of Idaho.

But Idaho Department of Labor chief researcher Bob Uhlenkott believes the U3 numbers the state releases are the most accurate, saying “Not only are they different formulas they are different by definition. The U3 is commonly used because those are the folks that are available and looking for work and available to businesses looking to hire.”

U6 numbers are calculated and released at the end of each quarter so the next firm figures will come at the conclusion of the third fiscal quarter in September.

Included in the items found in the IDOL unemployment report for July:

- Some 27,000 jobless workers collected more than $26.6 million in unemployment benefits in July – an almost even split between regular and federal extended benefits. In June, there more than 30,000 unemployed receiving nearly $29 million. Almost 11,000 workers have used up all their benefits – regular and federal extended – without finding a job.

- The Conference Board, a business think tank, found three unemployed workers for every job opening in Idaho in July. That is down from nearly four unemployed workers for every opening two months earlier.

- Of Idaho’s 44 counties, 21 recorded lower rates in July than June while 23 saw rates rise. There were 19 primarily rural counties that posted double-digit unemployment rates in July, up from 18 in June.

- Two major urban counties remained in double digits. Canyon County’s rate held steady at 12 percent, and Kootenai County also remained unchanged at 11.7 percent.

- The five-county metropolitan area including Ada and Canyon counties saw a two-tenths unemployment decline to 9.3 percent. The Pocatello metro area also slipped a notch to 8.6 percent while the Idaho Falls and Lewiston metro areas each rose slightly to 7.5 percent.

- The highest unemployment rate is Valley County’s at 16.6 percent, but that was down three-tenths from June.

- The lowest rate was Owyhee County at 5.2 percent, down a tenth from June.

“Nullification theoretically falls apart on itself because you create the buffet of law, meaning state one chooses this law and state two chooses this law,” Kane said.  “You have zero uniformity.”  He also said that if states could nullify federal law, they would have unchecked power, which the framers of the Constitution tried to avoid.

“If you advance the theory of nullification, you’ve created an unchecked power, because who is it to tell the state that they’re wrong on nullification? There isn’t anyone,” said Kane.

Immediately after that comment, Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, who backed such laws, asked Kane what checks there are on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is often the ultimate arbiter on constitutional issues.  Kane said Congress has some power to regulate the Supreme Court.

During the legislative session, Kane wrote several opinions on behalf of the attorney general’s office questioning the constitutionality of laws that called for nullifying or limiting implementation of new federal health care laws.  Lawmakers ended up passing a scaled-back version of that plan, which was vetoed by Gov. Butch Otter and replaced with a similar executive order.

Kane mentioned the Civil War numerous times in his presentation on nullification, adding that he was surprised that a country as big as the U.S. has only had one civil war since its creation. He defined nullification as the theory that a state has the right to invalidate federal laws it deems unconstitutional.

Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, who helped write some of the anti-health care reform plans, heard Kane’s presentation. He said Kane did a good job presenting the legal opinion of the attorney general’s office, but differed on the potential effects of states nullifying federal laws.

“I don’t know that there’s an automatic conclusion that secession is necessary just by the act of state’s nullifying,” Barbieri told IdahoReporter.com.  “I wouldn’t extend it that far at all.”

Barbieri said lawmakers will take up nullifying or otherwise pushing back against the federal government again.  “The federal government is overintruding into state affairs in so many different areas,” he said.

Kane said nullification is an important topic, since many people are concerned with the actions of the federal government.  “There’s a legitimate debate here about the scope and size of the federal government and the scope and size of the states,” he said.

States’ pushback against federal laws goes beyond health care.  Idaho lawmakers passed a law rejecting the REAL ID plan for enhanced drivers licenses and approved a firearm freedom law that blocks federal gun regulations on any firearm made and sold wholly in Idaho.  That law, a copy of similar laws in other states, has been struck down by a federal court, but is headed for an appeals court.  Other states have legalized medical marijuana; that idea has been suggested by Idaho Rep. Tom Trail, R-Moscow, but gotten nowhere.

Kane said the nullification issue was one factor in what he said was record public participation during this year’s legislative session.  “The backbone of our system is our ability to question our government,” he said.  Kane also listed several steps less severe than nullification that states or individuals can take to show displeasure with the federal government.  That list include acts of civil disobedience, opting out of federally-funded programs, litigating the constitutionality of a law and complaining loudly.  Idaho has taken each of those actions at times, including suing to stop the federal health care law.

Kane also said there’s one step beyond nullification: revolution.

Note: IdahoReporter.com is published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation, which helped write the health care nullification legislation.

Gov. Butch Otter and other members of the Idaho Land Board approved a plan brought by several county commissioners that needs federal legislation in Congress to make the shift to state management.  The Land Board will send a letter of support to Idaho’s congressional delegation and commissioners saying they’ve had preliminary talks about a small pilot project to see if state land managers can do a better job than the feds.

“Rural counties face an extreme situation right now,” said Dan Dinning, a commissioner from Boundary County in north Idaho.

Rural counties get a quarter of the money from timber sales on federal land in their county, thanks to legislation backed by former Sen. Larry Craig.  That plan, called the Secure Rural Schools Act, expires at the end of the year, though Congress is considering renewing the plan.

“If it doesn’t get reauthorized, we’re in a world of hurt,” said Gordon Cruickshank, a commissioner in Valley County in central Idaho.  Cruickshank, Dinning and other commissioners want to include a small pilot project in the reauthorization to let the state manage 200,000 acres of federal timber land.  That’s a small drop in the bucket of the 33 million acres of federal land in Idaho, which includes 11 million acres of national forest.  The feds would still own the land in the project, called the Community Forest Trust.

“You had me from ‘good morning,’ when I read this proposal,” Otter told Cruickshank and Dinning.  He also said that state management of the federal land could help state timber sales, arguing that state land could be the victim of neglect of federally managed land.

The commissioners say the federal payments are declining and volatile, due in part to trends in the logging industry but also federal management.  “That is a significant portion of our roads budget and our schools budget,” said Dinning.  “We need an alternative — one that does not rely on federal payment to us but yet still supports our local government and our community.”

The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) manages 2.5 million acres of land.  If it takes on federal land in the Community Forest Trust, its management costs would be deducted from the profits going out to counties.  IDL officials say they aren’t sure whether they’d hire new staff to deal specifically with the projects or draw up consulting contracts with the counties.

The new federal grant money will be for two programs run by the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW).  The agency will get $2 million for each of the next five years to offer grants to local organizations for programs to prevent cancer, heart attacks, strokes and diabetes. That federal money could go to city governments, hospitals, universities, health departments, and other organizations.

“We had a number of communities that were asking for it, and so we approved it,” said Otter’s spokesman, Jon Hanian.

Another $1 million would go to early childhood visiting programs being planned in four counties, Twin Falls, Jerome, Kootenai and Shoshone, in south central and north Idaho.  DHW had previously gotten $753,000 for the home visit program.

“It was not related to health insurance or Obamacare,” Hanian said.  “That’s why he [approved] that one.”

“Some of Idaho’s most expensive social problems are rooted in early childhood,” a memo released by the governor’s office on the waivers said. “Helping families provide healthy, stable home environments during the critical years of a child’s development increases that child’s health and success later in life.”

In an April letter explaining why he set up the waiver requirement for the federal laws and vetoed legislation that would’ve set up a similar plan, Otter said the state shouldn’t implement the federal laws.  “No one opposed Obamacare more vehemently than me,” he said.

Otter’s staff has said that the waivers he’s approved don’t implement the controversial parts of the plan, including the requirement that people buy health insurance.

“It’s a case-by-case basis,” Hanian said.  “[The governor] is not close minded about these things.  He’s willing to listen to a reasonable argument.”  Agencies must submit their requests for approval to the plan.

The governor’s office doesn’t show any further requests from state agencies to receive waivers to implement or receive funds from the federal reform laws.

The new panel, which was created alongside the debt ceiling extension, will be evenly split between Republicans and Democrats and the U.S. House and Senate.  Party leaders in each chamber have two weeks to pick panel members, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could tab Crapo.

“Mitch is going to have a very difficult time narrowing it down to just the three that he does ultimately select,” Crapo told IdahoReporter.com.

Crapo has experience trying to forge deals on debt, which includes bridging party lines.  Last year, McConnell selected him for a blue ribbon commission created by President Barack Obama to come up with a deficit reduction plan.  Crapo voted for that plan, dubbed Simpson-Bowles after its leaders, but it didn’t get enough support from others in the group.

After that attempt, Crapo joined with five other senators, including members who were also on Obama’s commission, to form the “Gang of Six,” which spent months in secretive talks before unveiling a plan during the debt ceiling debate to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion in a decade.  Obama praised the plan, but it ran into opposition from House Republicans.

Crapo said he’s hasn’t made up his mind on if he wants a third go-around on identifying areas to cut as well as untapped revenues.

“I’m not sure whether I would like to be on the committee,” he said.  “It’s a thankless task, but it’s an important task.  I would certainly accept the opportunity if I were offered, (but) no, I don’t have an expectation one way or the other.”

The website Politico listed Crapo as a potential pick for the committee, saying that the two other Republicans in the Gang of Six, Saxby Chambliss of Mississippi and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, aren’t being considered.

However, Crapo’s past experience and deal-making with the group could also shut him out.  A Wall Street Journal opinion piece wrote Monday “No one from the Senate Gang of Six, who proposed tax increases, need apply.”  Crapo earned other critics for the plan.  Tea Party Boise called him a RINO, or Republican in Name Only, and called for protests at his offices across the state because the plan might do away with some tax deductions, including on charitable donations and home mortgages.  The AARP, which represents people over the age of 50, criticized the plan’s changes to Social Security and Medicare.

Crapo rejected the claim that the Gang of Six would jack up taxes.  “I was surprised by it because it was not valid,” he said.  “The attack that came was that we were proposing a tax increase when in reality we were proposing the biggest tax cut that has been on the table for decades.”

The gang’s plan called for major reforms to the tax code, so while it planned on bringing in more than $1 trillion in revenue to the federal government, it’s not easy to say who would see their tax burden rise or fall.  Crapo said the general idea is to broaden the tax base and lower income tax rates, thus spurring economic growth.  However, the plan also assumes that Congress won’t extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts on people earning more than $250,000.

Crapo also has said often that a straight tax increase couldn’t get through Congress, and that most of the savings had to come from cutting federal spending and programs.

Crapo wasn’t completely tied to the “Gang of Six” plan to lower America’s debt — he voted for the debt ceiling plan that passed Congress and supported the failed “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan – but he said, one way or another, its ideas are likely to be in the new deficit committee’s final plan.

“We were able to find the kind of solutions in our discretionary and entitlement spending and our revenue policy that are the best plan forward for a strong, pro-growth agenda for the country,” Crapo said.

Whether or not Crapo is on the committee, it must have a $1.5 trillion saving plan ready by Thanksgiving.  The committee needs a simple majority, so it’s possible one Republican or Democrat may cross over to vote with the other party to approve a plan.  However, that plan must pass Congress by mid January or else cuts to many programs, including the military, will go into effect.

“We’re going to follow the federal health reform, but we’re going to do it at a slower pace,” said Teresa Luna, the head of the Department of Administration, which oversees the state’s health plan for its workers.  “In exchange for doing it at a slower pace, we guarantee that we won’t raise rates at an exorbitant manner.”

State lawmakers ordered Luna to keep the state plan grandfathered, though she can report back next year if it would be cheaper to change the plan’s status, which would give the state more options in running its plan.

Workers on the state plan are still seeing some of the changes under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as Obamacare.  Children of plan members can stay covered through the age of 26, and pre-existing health conditions of children under 19 must be covered.  By 2014, the current lifetime maximum of $1 million in health benefits will disappear.

Implementing these reforms cost the state approximately $1.5 million, according to Luna, which is less than 1 percent of the yearly cost of the insurance plan.

However, the Idaho state plan and other grandfathered plans across the country don’t need to follow other parts of the federal law.  Those provisions include eliminating added payments for going to out-of-network emergency rooms and free preventative care, which includes services such as cancer and blood pressure screenings.  A full list of reforms that don’t apply to grandfathered plans is available at the U.S. Department of Labor’s website.

Luna said she and others monitoring Idaho’s insurance plan are looking to more preventative medicine as a way to keep costs down.  “We’re going to start working on a program that will make wellness and preventive medicine more of a focal point,” she said.  “We’re hoping to learn more what our costs are and then limit those costs by making the right choices rather than fixing them after things have already gone wrong.”

Leaders of two groups representing state workers, the Idaho Public Employees Association and the Idaho Association of Government Employees, told IdahoReporter.com they weren’t familiar with the grandfathered status of the state plan.

To keep the state health plan grandfathered, Luna’s department needed approval from Gov. Butch Otter, who also signed off on several other waivers to let the state follow the federal reforms.  The other waivers could bring in almost $19 million in federal money for programs that the governor’s office said don’t implement some of the controversial reforms.

Idaho is among the majority of states suing to stop implementation of the federal reforms’ requirement that people buy health insurance.  Idaho’s case is currently in a federal appeals court and could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Idaho cities can charge franchise fees on residents’ electricity bills, as well as other utilities including water and natural gas.  These fees are collected by the utility, but go straight into city coffers.  Under state law, city councils can vote to impose a fee of 1 percent on monthly utility bills; those fees can go up to 3 percent, but require either a vote of the people or the utility’s permission.

In Idaho, 87 cities have electricity franchise fees, according to the state’s three major electricity companies, Rocky Mountain Power, Avista and Idaho Power.  Most are at the 1 percent level, including one city that added a fee this year, Rathdrum in north Idaho.   Ammon in southeast Idaho also added a 3 percent fee this year.

Rathdrum city manager Brett Boyer said the utilities hadn’t been covering the cost of using the city’s rights-of-way.  “It’s pretty common for a city to have a franchise fee,” he said.  “The other larger cities around us all have franchise fees.”

“The general customer probably isn’t aware that the franchise fee is a tax from the municipality,” said Avista spokeswoman Jessie Wuertz.  “It tends to be a small number on a per customer basis, but when you roll it up with the number of customers in [a city], it could be a good chunk of tax money for the municipality, and we’ve collected it for them.”

Several cities are also considering raising their fee rates, though officials with several utilities say it isn’t widespread.  “There doesn’t seem to be a trend,” said Rocky Mountain Power spokesman Jeff Hymas.

New Plymouth officials approved a 0.5 percent increase, to 1.5 percent, earlier this year.  New Plymouth clerk Leon Jensen said that money will go to adding new street lights and replacing aging lights.

The Nampa City Council has approved raising the fee to 1.25 percent, while Boise officials have yet to sign off on raising fees to 1.25 percent this year and 1.5 percent next year.  Boise officials say that increase would add 18 cents to an average electricity bill, though a recent rate decrease from Idaho Power would result in total savings for consumers.

“Our [fee increase] pales in comparison to that rate decrease that they’re proposing, so this is a good time to do it, if you’re going to do it,” budget analyst Ozzie Gripentrog said at a Boise City Council meeting last month.

View Idaho cities franchise fees 2011 in a full screen map

The franchise fee money coming into cities’ budgets are part of the cities’ agreements with utilities to provide basic services to residents, and cities can’t charge the utilities other taxes or fees, including for use of city land or rights-of-way for power lines.  The fee money be spent on capital projects, but those projects don’t have to be connected to the utilities.  Boise, for example, plans to use the expected $400,000 from the first fee increase on several building and maintenance projects, including parks, libraries and fire stations.

Nampa would put its added $130,000 a year into reserves for capital projects, including replacing the roof of the civic center and the Idaho Center.  “The city has an obligation to keep up its facilities,” said finance director Vikki Chandler said.  “We have to be prepared for something in the event of an emergency.”

Chandler said the increased fees on electricity bills are one effort at raising revenue for the city government.  “Anything else after the property tax and the state’s shared [sales tax] is fees,” she said.

Businesses haven’t expressed concerns about the rising fees.  Officials with both the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce and the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry say they haven’t heard from their members about the increases.

Idaho Power approved the increases in both Boise and Nampa, so those potential increased bills won’t require a vote of the people.  However, the utility is changing its stance on future increases.  “The company is asking the cities to go to approval of the voters,” said Layne Dodson, Idaho Power’s community relations program manager.  He said the change came in the past few months, in part because the company was concerned about increasing consumers’ electricity rates.

“There was a time where the company did offer mutual consent,” Dodson said.  “We’ve changed our point of view recently.”

The city of Eagle is looking at increasing from a 1 percent fee on electricity bills to 3 percent, with that money going to bury some power lines underground.  The City Council has yet to approve that plan, but it would also go to a vote of the public.

Eagle officials could take up their electricity fee increase in early August.  The Boise City Council has yet to schedule a final vote on increasing its fee.

Since the franchise fee is a percentage of the utility bill, cities could take in more if rates rise.  All three utilities have submitted requests to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for electricity rates, ranging between 3.7 percent for Avista and 15 percent for Rocky Mountain Power.  Idaho Power recently lowered rates by 3 percent, due to several adjustments, and Avista could slightly reduce rates due to a drop in an efficiency fee.

Below is a full list of cities that charge a franchise fee.

In an e-mail Wednesday, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) said “MDT has reviewed the judge’s order and is preparing to move forward when a trial date is set by the court.”

Could this ruling and the wait for a trial date potentially affect Idaho and the megaloads crossing Highway 12 and Interstate 90 into Montana?

Jeff Stratten from the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) said that the ruling does not directly affect Idaho. “The ruling from Judge Dayton was specific to Montana state law and the Montana DOT. The ruling is not applicable to Idaho or the issuance of over-legal permits in Idaho. I’m uncertain whether the ruling prevents ExxonMobil from transporting loads across I-90 in Montana as it did last Friday from the Port of Lewiston up U.S. 95 to Coeur d’Alene, then on I-90 to the Montana border, or only on the original proposed route (on U.S. 12 through Idaho and several highways in Montana).”

Idaho also has permits for what he called “over-legal” loads and has issued several permits. “ITD has issued seven over-legal permits to haul these kinds of loads. Four to ConocoPhillips earlier this year, one to ExxonMobil to move a test module on U.S. 12, and two to ExxonMobil to transport loads on U.S. 95 and I-90. The permit for the second ExxonMobil load to travel U.S. 95 would need to be reissued. It expired. A hauler has five days from the date of the permit’s issuance to move a load. The permit was issued for both loads on Friday.”

ExxonMobil’s request to transport over-legal loads on U.S. 12 in Idaho is in the contested case hearing process. Hearing officer Duff McKee in late June recommended ITD issue permits. Those opposed requested the hearing officer reconsider. After reviewing the request to reconsider and responses to that request, the hearing officer will make a recommendation to Brian Ness, ITD director. Ness will then issue a ruling.

If either party disagrees with the ruling of Ness, the next legal recourse would be to file a challenge in district court.

The Montana injunction was granted in response to the plaintiffs’ claim than an original order issued by the state permitting the shipments to exceed the state’s legal dimension limit for transport on two-lane roads was not valid. Specifically, at issue are the use of oversize permits and utility relocation permits. The issuance of the permits means that construction work must be done on highway turnouts, as well as modification to utility lines and traffic signals because some of the megaloads exceed legal dimensions. The plaintiffs alleged that MDT failed to adequately consider impacts of the project and didn’t consider reasonable alternatives. Plaintiffs also alleged that MDT violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act by not preparing an environmental impact statement.

So far, Otter has signed off on 10 grants that would let state agencies spend $18.9 million in federal funds from the PPACA.  State officials say the money won’t implement the parts of the health reform laws that the governor and lawmakers have publicly scorned, including the individual mandate to buy health insurance, but are for other federal health programs that are part of the law.

“The governor has said before, if folks make a good argument and explain the reasons for it, he’s willing to have his mind and opinion changed,” said Otter’s spokesman, Jon Hanian. “In some cases they were successful; in others they weren’t.” Hanian provided IdahoReporter.com with a list of the waivers approved by the governor.

The biggest waiver approved is the $12.5 million Idaho Ladder to Success Project requested by the College of Southern Idaho (CSI).  That grant is intended to improve technical college’s efforts to help students trying to enter the health care, energy and manufacturing job sectors.  Idaho State University could also get $1.2 million for a doctor residency program.

Half of the 10 waivers the governor approved were from the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), which runs Medicaid and other health programs that often rely on both state and federal tax dollars.  Approved DHW waivers included money for a media campaign to promote quitting smoking and planning to determine how to help people on Medicaid with chronic illnesses, as well as several grants to help public health efforts.

“I don’t think you can consider tobacco prevention to be health care reform,” said DHW spokesman Tom Shanahan, who said Idaho had received federal funds for similar programs before the reforms were passed.  “When you think of health care reform, you think of things that are going to change in the health care industry, and these are things that aren’t really involved in health care reform.”

Otter also rejected one DHW waiver request, for increased Medicaid funding for more community-based personal care services.  Those services allow people to live on their own, by paying people to come into their house to help with routine tasks.

“For many people, if they get those services, they don’t have to go to a nursing home,” Shanahan said.  Idaho does offer some personal care services to people.  The grant would’ve allowed the federal government to pay for more and help more people live on their own, but would’ve required the state to increase its total funding, as well.

“It’s an expansion, and right now we’re not in the business of expanding anything,” Hanian said.  “We’re not looking to expand programs at this point, because of the uncertainty, and beyond that, concerns about the spending that we’ve seen in Washington.”

The governor also approved a waiver to let the Idaho Department of Labor continue setting up a information system for primary care health jobs.  That grants provides $125,000 in federal funds.

The Department of Adminstration received two grants.  One allows the state to have its health plan for state workers be grandfathered into the federal health reforms.  That requires the state to maintain some of the benefits, but not follow all the reforms to insurance plans.  The second waiver would allow the department to receive more than $2 million in reimbursements for any state workers who might retire early and aren’t eligible for Medicare who might stay on an insurance plan provided by the state.

Hanian said the waivers the governor approved don’t put into place any new national health care provisions and that Idaho has been working on state-based health reforms for years.  “We were doing this after we got into office,” Hanian said.  “Obamacare is something that came along afterwards.”

Read IdahoReporter.com‘s earlier story on waivers for the federal health care law.