Colorado Ballot Initiatives for 2016-Part 1

Any breathing person who is remotely interested in the 2016 election realizes that this is going to be one hell of an election year. What makes it even more interesting, and profound, for the citizens of Colorado, are the ballot initiatives that we get to vote “for” or “against” this November. The first four approved initiatives are the subject of this article. However, additional initiatives, which are currently working their way through the approval and validation process, are also fascinating and will be covered as they make their way onto the ballot. They include two initiatives that would put the power of fracking regulations under local jurisdiction or actually specify oil and gas setbacks for the entire state.

Initiative # 20 ColoradoCare

The first initiative (#20) is an amendment to the constitution of the State of Colorado to establish a new subdivision of the state called ColoradoCare (CC). CC is not proposed as an agency of the State and therefore is proposed to operate under the management of an independent board and not by the state government. It cannot be contaminated by political party or ideological interests. Its stated purpose is to provide health care services for all Colorado citizens. An interim management board will be appointed when the initiative passes. However, the amendment calls for 21 elected trustees, elected by the people of Colorado for which the services apply. Fraud oversight, full transparency, funding, operational oversight, and the structure of the agency are all spelled out in detail.

Coverage is quite extensive including all the expected hospital, physician, ambulance, mental health, preventive health, all drugs and medications, palliative and end of life care, maternity, laboratory, pediatric, rehabilitative, wellness and chronic care. Medicaid coverage is incorporated and complete as required by current law. There will be no co-pay, or cost sharing, allowed by any provider and a member may choose their desired physician.

Funding, after a transitional period, is to come from a levy of 6.67% of wages from employers; 3.33% from each employee and 10% from each non payroll beneficiary. It should be noted that non payroll income does not include any pension or annuity income not subject to Colorado state tax, and CC covers non Medicare covered services including a supplemental plan to be offered by CC.

Editorial comment: This plan is a model single payer system. It would provide 100% of the required medical care for any situation a member may incur, regardless of how or where it is incurred. The cost basis is as stated and each individual will have to decide whether they can obtain equal coverage privately and less expensively than this system proposes. This initiative is well thought out and structured. It is not supported by major entities including “heavy” Democrats and Republicans and almost all medical service providers as they fear a loss of revenue and/or influence. The fact that politicians do not support it is probably the best reason for voting for it. Politicians are always lobbied by the big money interests to not support any change that may threaten their profits.

Recommended Vote: FOR

Initiative #96 – Make The Initiative Process More Difficult

The stated purpose of this amendment to the state constitution is clearly intended to stifle the ability of Colorado citizens to require enactment action by our legislators. This initiative significantly raises the number of signatures that must be collected on a petition for constitutional amendments to be placed on the ballot.

Currently, if a group of citizens wishes to collect signatures in order to put an initiative on the ballot, they need to collect a number of signatures equal to 5% of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state. For the years 2015-2018 this number is just short of 100,000 signatures. The proposed initiative would raise this number to 2% of the total registered voters in the senate district. The difference between the current process and the proposed process could mean that activists will need to obtain 740,000 signatures! (based on August 2016 data). The cost for such a signature gathering event could be several millions of dollars and will effectively kill the initiative process in Colorado.

Initiative #101 – Minimum Wage

Editorial Comment: The proponents of this initiative are primarily the lobbying interests for big business and politicians who do not want to be hampered by the existing democratic process in which voters force initiatives to be placed on the ballot. Oil and gas interests, big Pharma and big medicine (think ColoradoCare) as well as real estate and development interests do not want the citizens to have a voice in our governance. This amendment must be defeated if we are to continue to make Colorado a better, citizen driven, place to live.

Recommended Vote: AGAINST

This amendment has a simple focus; it raises the minimum wage for Colorado employees. This initiative increases the minimum wage from the current $6.85/hour to $9.30 in January of 2017 and then $0.90 yearly until $12.00/hour is reached. The minimum wage would be increased only by cost of living from there forward.

Editorial Comment: The current level of wages is insufficient to provide sufficiency for struggling families and individuals. Raising the minimum wages has been shown to have a positive impact on the economy in each state/city which has already raised their minimum wage.

Recommended Vote: FOR

Initiative #145 Colorado End-Of -Life Options Act

This amendment is intended to give individuals the right to make a decision to end their life under safeguards and requirements that ensure the decision is taken with precautions and concurrence of the affected individual. In order to receive a prescription for life terminating drugs, a person must make two oral requests, separated by 15 days, and then follow up with a written request to their attending physician. Coercion by anyone is prohibited. The request must be witnessed by two individuals and the person must be judged mentally capable and acting voluntarily. Witnesses must be either a relation, a person who is an inheritor under a written will or a professional health care facility person. The request can be rescinded by the patient, presumably before the prescription takes effect, regardless of the patient’s mental state.

This initiative is well written, has significant safeguards to prevent anyone but the dying patient to make and carry out the process. Fraud in connection with the written request or in requesting the prescription by others for the patients use, is a felony. The necessary forms are included as are the specific ancillary requirements placed on insurance policies or annuities. Physicians who disagree with the act can opt out of providing the prescription.

Editorial Comment: The right to choose to end your life is inalienable. If your belief in continued suffering and torment is well founded in your religion, you do not have to choose to end your life. If, on the other hand, you are facing extreme pain and suffering for weeks, months or even years, and you feel that your suffering is a needless burden on your family and friends, then the individual should have the right to choose death.

Recommend Vote: FOR