A new legislative session has commenced in Colorado, and with it the state can expect a slew of new laws to be written into the tablets. But it is unmistakable that a good deal of the major legislation in the state does not emanate from under the gold dome but from the ballot box. Consequently, we have a few ballot measures that will be hanging spectrally over the Capitol this session. Among the more important will be Amendment 69, otherwise known as ColoradoCare.

ColoradoCare, for the uninitiated, is a constitutional amendment to establish a single-payer health care system in the state. The conventional wisdom is that it lacks a snowball’s chance in a furnace of passing, but this skepticism may be unwarranted.

Much has been written about the failures and downfalls of single payer health systems, and I will refrain here from delving too far into the economic details except to say that its structural pitfalls go far beyond just the (initial) $25 billion price tag that will be borne by Colorado taxpayers and business owners. Single payer may sound fabulous, but it will also artificially drive up demand because it shifts costs from the point of service to the the provider — increasing the disconnect between the actual costs of delivering health care and what most people pay for it — while failing to provide a means to cover the intrinsic costs associated with all of this new demand. MRI machines, for instance, have certain costs associated with purchasing, operation and analysis of the results, no matter what the new state health care commission decides that cost should be to keep the system sustainable.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem beguiling countries using single-payer systems, such as Canada, and why they experience such chronic issues as egregious wait times for procedures that are much more readily available in the United States. It is also the reason why a single payer model was rejected in Vermont by a governor who campaigned vigorously on its establishment, and, incidentally, why many believe it will never pass in Colorado.

I think that such optimism is a mistake.

Consider a few factors specific to this year, and this proposal. First is the simple fact that it has gotten as far as it has, its backers having accumulated more than enough signatures to secure it a place on the ballot. That ballot is a good one for them as well, inasmuch as the measure is being offered to the voters in a presidential election year, which tends to draw out greater numbers in the demographics that are likely more sympathetic to left-wing causes, such as government-paid health care.

Bear in mind too that there are likely to be other ballot measures that draw out the sort of voters needed to pass single-payer. A pile of new anti-oil and gas initiatives were just submitted to the Secretary of State’s office, which will bring on the traditional liberal-leaning voter. And there will very likely be a measure to allow full strength beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, which itself could convince a new, younger, possibly less politically cognizant block of folks to fill out their ballots. These voters will find a measure whereby the government pays your medical bills. How many of these people will think seriously about the consequences? It’s an open question.

Finally, there is the skilled marketing being employed by the backers of ColoradoCare. Wisely, they are not relying solely on the feel-good, gift-bag element of the proposal, though the prospect of something “free” is always an easier sell than the explanation of why, in fact, it is not. But the proponents of the measure are cleverer than that, and will likely direct voters, especially in more conservative parts of the state, to the fact that the proposal is using the waiver built into the Affordable Care Act — “Obamacare” — to create the system. It will be sold in many parts of the state, not entirely inaccurately, as an amendment to replace “Obamacare” with our own state-based system. Given the immense unpopularity of the national health care law, and the problems generated by it, that is a very smart way to go about promoting Amendment 69, even though it leaves off a huge part of the story: namely that it will take our health care system further on the wrong course charted by the ACA.

ColoradoCare will radically transform Colorado’s health care system and present serious and detrimental consequences for the state’s economy, small businesses and the quality of health service delivery. A dangerous and radical idea, yes — but in a state that is known for periodically adopting radical constitutional amendments (think legalized recreational marijuana), it’s an idea that should not be written off as dead on arrival.

Kelly Sloan is a Grand Junction-based political and public affairs consultant, journalist and is a Centennial Institute fellow in energy policy.