Eye on the Legislature


September 19, 2016


   There is not much new on the push to pass Amendment 69 except for this bit showing how desperate proponent of this fiasco are.

Spokesperson T. R. Reid appearing on Colorado Public television stated that Amendment 69 was subject to the TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights). Such a blatantly false statement is absolutely fraudulent in that the language of the proposed amendment to the Constitution states that "ColoradoCare is across the board totally exempt from the   Taxpayers Bill of Rights."

Two scenarios:  Mr. Reid, one of the prime spokespersons for Amendment 69, has not read the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution, or does not know what those words mean.

Second, Mr. Reid and the proponents of Amendment 69 are counting on you as a Colorado citizen to accept his word and the proponents, and not read the actual content of the ballot language and proposed amendment.

Be careful, the caps on income subject to taxation being thrown out by this same group are not included anywhere in the ballot language or the proposed amendment, which translates to this group demanding that you trust their word that the proposed governing board will have the good heart to honor what this group is peddling, a group that will say anything to get it passed as is apparent from Mr. Reid's false statement. Could the proponents be counting on Colorado voters to not read the actual language of the proposed amendment???

With the ambiguous language in the proposed amendment and unlimited power Amendment 69 would give this proposed governing board, the 10 percent tax on non-payroll income could be only the beginning rate with the sky's the limit, because said board can raise the tax rate by a majority vote of the governing board. Exemption from TABOR means no such increase will ever have to be submitted to taxpayers of Colorado.

The following paragraphs are provided each week as a reminder of the critical controlling points for the ColoradoCare Amendment 69 that Coloradans will be voting on in November. 

  • All Coloradans will lose their current benefit plan to be replaced by benefits yet to be determined, to be serviced by an entity yet to be identified, to include providers yet to be named.
  •  Readers are cautioned that anything you read or hear about Amendment 69 means ColoradoCare is across the board totally exempt from the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. There will be no restriction on the tax (premiums) the governing board can impose on you the citizens of Colorado. (Section 10. Exemption. ColoradoCare and this article are exempt from Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution. [Article X is the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (aka TABOR)].
  • Further caution - Section 3. There is hereby established a political subdivision of the state called ColoradoCare. ColoradoCare is not an agency of the state and is not subject to administrative direction or control by any state executive, department, commission, board, bureau or agency.  

   When politicians and their supporters take on an issue such as health care and Amendment 69, paying attention to what is not being said in all the hyperbole to get

something passed is the true test of credibility. Remember, last week's column included statements by the ColoradansForColoradans NoOn69 folks that "Colorado should not be the guinea pig," and "Coloradans should not have to risk their health care, their income and our economic future on a risky experiment that has never been tried anywhere before."

   Senator Sanders' statements quoted later in this column confirm what passage of Amendment 69 would mean. Please read on.

The folks at ColoradoCare Amendment 69 continue casting a broad net in attempt to enlist experts to endorse the proposed universal health care system, a term now being used to refer to what has previously been known as a single-payer state health care system.

In previous columns, the attempt by the state of Vermont was identified as the only other state in the United States to try to adopt a single-payer state health care system. That attempt failed – it was never put into operation and withdrawn by the Governor of Vermont upon submission of a final analysis that showed it would double the state budget.

This writer believes it is a true signal of the up-hill battle a measure faces by this:  the "splashier and flashier" the endorsers are, the more trouble proponents realize the measure is in for.

A news release last week by ColoradoCare announced Senator Bernie Sanders launched his new organization, Our Revolution, with a glowing endorsement of Colorado's Amendment 69 "as one of a handful of measures his group is actively supporting." Sanders also said, "There is an important ballot initiative in Colorado which calls for a Medicare-for-All health care system." "It is absurd, it is beyond belief, that here in America we remain the only major country on [e]arth not to guarantee health care to all people. If that proposal can win in Colorado, I believe that idea will spread around the country, and Our Revolution is supporting Amendment 69," and is making it one of the top issues of his new organization.

Now, readers should recall, this Senator Sanders is the same Senator Sanders who gave Hillary Clinton a run for her money in the recent Democratic Presidential primary earlier this year. The Director of Communications for Amendment 69, Owen Perkins, made this statement:  "It's hard to imagine a figure whose support of Colorado Care is more meaningful than Senator Sanders . . . Senator Sanders has helped create the ideal environment for passing ColoradoCare."

By the way, for those who may have already forgotten – Senator Sanders is from the great state of Vermont, the same Vermont that ditched a proposed single-payer state health care system before it ever went into operation because it could not afford the horrendous cost.

The ringing endorsement by Sanders of Colorado's proposed single-payer state health care system borders on the insane. Why should the citizens of Colorado suffer the consequences of a system that has never been in operation anywhere in this country?

For readers in the 65 and over crowd, please beg, cajole, "bribe," do whatever it takes to get all those you know or come in contact with to work diligently, even aggressively, to defeat Amendment 69. The 65 and over segment of Colorado's population will suffer the greatest financial detriment should Amendment 69 pass in November – to the tune of a 10 percent tax on ALL non-payroll income!

The reader's comments or questions are always welcome. E-mail me at doris@dorisbeaver.com.