This editorial was published by the Idaho Press-Tribune of Nampa.

---

You don't have to be an astute political observer to know that anything tied to Obamacare is about as popular with Republican members of the Idaho Legislature as religious conservatives are in Hollywood.

That is to say, not very popular.

You also have to admit that it just looks bad for those same opponents of any state efforts to expand health care coverage to those who don't have policies or do not qualify for Medicaid or Affordable Care Act subsidies to be reaping full-time state health care benefits.

State legislators are typically in session from January through March, sometimes into April. For this reason they are regarded as part-time workers. Some do take part in study groups and task forces to research possible legislation, and that can take several hours per day. Some of them also do research on their own for bills they would like to propose, and they also get phone calls and emails from constituents throughout the year.

We recently took the position that the extra work that some of these legislators do should be taken into account when determining whether their service in the Legislature should help them accrue higher payouts from the state's public retirement system, PERSI. Some have criticized legislators for taking high-paying full-time gigs with the state for a few years after serving for a decade or more as legislators and having those "part-time" years considered as though they were full-time. The Idaho Freedom Foundation, in particular, has been vociferous in its opposition.

Most of the state's legislators - 90 out of 105, to be exact - are enrolled in that full-time health care system. Should they be allowed to?

That depends on your philosophy on whether they should be regarded as full-time employees. And according to the unscientific online poll we conducted in June, the overwhelming majority of respondents - about 95 percent - believe they shouldn't.

Remember that many of these people are not part of special off-season study groups, so for them, it essentially is a part-time job. And many of them are on record as not only opposing all-out Medicaid expansion but also attempts earlier this year to provide some sort of coverage for the roughly 78,000 people who fall into that coverage gap.

Those of us in the private sector with part-time jobs wouldn't have a chance at these generous state health care benefits. So it just looks bad when the same legislators who shrug off those among us who have no coverage - some of those folks also part-time workers - and then accept the Cadillac coverage they get courtesy of you, the taxpayer.

Even the staunchest, most loyal of Democrats has to admit that Obamacare hasn't been the rose garden that was promised. We were told it would lower health care costs; instead they have soared. Millions were told that if they liked their plans they could keep them, only to be kicked out. True, millions now have coverage who once didn't, but for some of them the deductables are so high they can't afford to pay them. Higher health care costs for employers resulting from Obamacare have been a factor in stagnant wages for years now.

Yes, state legislators who oppose Medicaid expansion because it would expand our already-bloated federal debt do look like hypocrites when they gladly accept federal funding for other purposes. Still, their concerns about a looming debt crisis are valid.

But as valid as those concerns are, and as legitimate as many criticisms of Obamacare are, the Idaho legislators leveling them should at least be consistent. If they're going to take these full-time state health care benefits, they darn sure should put finding a way to cover those 78,000 people in the gap among their top priorities this winter.