John Weibel

John Weibel 2 days, 18 hours ago on Steve Hofman: Amendment 69 would make bad system worse

Yep Scott, everything is not all black or white. Though in general small restaurants, retail shops, etc, which occupy prime commercial spaces generally do not make money hand over fist. Yes they make money and when the economy is healthy they do well, When it's not they struggle. It will add labor expenses to small business', that generally will add to one of their largest expenses. That will impact their profitability and cause some, if the economy stays healthy to close. If the economy falters again, which it will (probably sooner rather than later - commodity prices are pointing that direction) causing more to not be able to make ends meet with higher labor costs.

In general those small business, which occupy retail, commercial retail spaces, will be paying for this proposal benefitting goverent agencies which will see their expenses go down.

You remember the story of Robin Hood, told he robbed from the rich and have to the poor. When one actually thinks of what transpired, he took back excessive tax collections from a corrupt government and returned them to the poor who were burdened by such high tax payments to the government.

The burden of this proposal falls on small business', which are exempt from the aca need to provide insurance. It will impact real estate as those small business' will have more costs of business. That will effect property values and subsequently taxes.

Also Paul, on people moving here many moved here for pot to help their chronic medical conditions.

It is speculation, but so is the speculation that a government agency can keep admin costs lower than an insurance company. Probably can't from my vantage point as no one directly benefits from doing so. Where in the peivate sector getting the job done with four people versus five benefits the employe of those four people and maybe those four people as they are rewarded.


John Weibel 3 days, 10 hours ago on Steve Hofman: Amendment 69 would make bad system worse


Evidence that the burden will be put on the backs of small business', si what you are referring too???

Currently most small business' do not provide any insurance today. In the future, those small employers taxes on those employees will go from where they are today and add an additional 6.67% tax on their wages that those small business, whose largest expense is payroll, in general, about 50% of my expenses is labor, so my general expenses will rise by 3.33%. In the future that will probably rise as my utilities will be fixed, maintenance is insignificant, rent is a percentage of sales, insurance (property and liability only today which will not see a significant increase with increased sales) and payroll (which will rise with sales as more people will be needed. I am not making a significant amount of money and hope to one day make a little better than the average government worker does (not including pension) I also hope those working with me do also.

How can you not comprehend that the burden will be shifted onto the backs of small business', who in general do not pay for insurance today (those making enough probably contribute some), because they do not make that much money!!!!!!!!!!


John Weibel 4 days, 15 hours ago on Gary DeKoter: Amendment is risk we shouldn't take


a .5% reduction in the growth of health care is not much when considering a 17% increase because of rising medical costs..... which could skyrocket with migration to a state for free healthcare of chronic conditions.

As Scott pointed out the burden of paying for healthcare from government entities, large employers and their employees to small business owners who struggle as it is. Those farmers, small coffee shops, restaurants, retail stores and the like will soon find that their costs have risen too much, and Amazon and companies prices make too much sense to shop locally, creating a major commercial real estate vacancy problem, reducing taxes for those entities saving money and a whole myriad of other unintended consequences of the constitutional amendment which will be hard to undo.

Greater Good? It is nothing of the sort, further consolidation of wealth into corporations hands, further mechanization of industries to defray costs and putting larger burders on those that do to provide unemployment and now health insurance.

In Ag it will make those small farmers, providing nutrient dense foods a more difficult time in trying to make ends meet. As our indoctrination system, oops educational system, has taught us to compartmentalize everything, and not look at the whole of an action. Oh well, I sure would like better health for all, and am working for that, but you seemingly fail to examine the whole of the problem.


John Weibel 6 days, 18 hours ago on Debate on Amendment 69 healthcare proposal continues


If the Government were interested in Health, then the Government would try to actually impose fees on those items which are causing "health" issues, to pay for "health" care.

Cigarette Taxes would go to fund this, A tax on diesel, which is linked to increases in asthma rates, a tax on electricity to help pay for the increased Leukemia, rates when one lives under high voltage power lines.

This is simply a mechanism to pay for the dramatically rising health care premiums needed because the government, in my opinion, has created a cheap food system that is making us sick. They do not care about health care.

Did you ever read the Story of Robin Hood? We are led to believe that he robbed from the rich to give to the poor, when in reality he took back excessive taxes from the government and returned them to the people, who were overtaxed by the system.

Heck, this will be yet another transfer of taxes to the small business owner by the government, which will see its health care expenditures decline and those small business' probably will close down and or consolidate as they can not afford the additional costs. This will lead to lower commercial space demand, reducing the value of those commercial space, leading to lower tax revenues.

The proposal is a hope to crate a better system of payments for "sick" care and does nothing to improve health - at least as far as we know because, what we are voting on is to crate a board that is going to create a new mechanism to pay for "sick" care.


John Weibel 6 days, 18 hours ago on Debate on Amendment 69 healthcare proposal continues

Insurers have a cap on the amount they can charge for administration. So if insurance rates are going up by 17%, then the actual cost of providing for the care of the sick is going up by something closer to 16%, not the above referenced 5.8% and Colorado Care will find itself in a major financial bind in the near future as premiums (taxes) will not be able to rise as quickly as insurance premiums are regulated to be able to rise at.

Three is the major disconnect, yes the ACA has allowed lots of previously uninsured to join the ranks, increasing the total medical bill much faster than in the past.

The act does NOTHING to actually work toward addressing the underlying issues that have created a health care crisis in this country. Our food, laden with additives to preserve it, is embalming our bodies to the point we do not decompose, when dead as in the past. Our food also has led to many inflammatory conditions that is making us unhealthy and causing the dramatic increases in our health care costs.


John Weibel 6 days, 19 hours ago on Debate on Amendment 69 healthcare proposal continues

Lock, That is the thin g about insurance, you have it and hope to never use it.

I paid in for years always never having money come back to me. Then one day, a home on my farm burned to the ground. I received about 15 years worth of premiums paid in back.

That is why one has insurance.


John Weibel 6 days, 19 hours ago on Debate on Amendment 69 healthcare proposal continues

Peter, The implications of this upon small business owners, who are located in most of the downtown establishments spell major funding crises' for the government agencies that will save.

What happens when you add an additional 6.67% payroll tax on the largest expense item for business' that are operating on a net margin of 3%?

Personally, the vacant spaces on Lincoln of the last recession will become more much more dramatic. All of the Local governmental organizations will face declining revenue streams as a result of the amendment, and the closures of small business' occupying commercial space.

We are voting on something that is not decided and so the uncertainty is unsettling. Almost everyone agrees there are problems, but there are no details, the costs of operating such a system are unknown and will most likely come in higher than forecast as most forecasts do. The thought that employee expenses at the "insurer" Colorado Care are going to be less than insurance agencies, with 21 board members making wages similar to county commissioners, plus the staffing to work with the board, manage the system is pure fantasy.

The biggest issue I see is that we are talking about shifting the burden to small business' from the broader community to pay for this. Most Mom and Pop operations can not afford health insurance for employees today as they do not have the revenue streams to justify them. This will push out many small operations and leave lots of vacant commercial space, driving down tax revenues - with no set plan for how it is going to be managed.


John Weibel 1 week, 1 day ago on Paul Hebert: Financial boon possible with Amendment 69

Well here is a podcast of an individual who was in med school and asked the dean why is the second year devoted to pharmacology, why can't half be dedicated to nutrition? The deans response was something like I can't change the whole medical industry, but your on to something.

The interviewed went on to foster children and change behavior in the children in weeks because of diet. This whole debate leaves out the underlying factors in maintining health and only treats symptoms.

By the way, given half of those treated in yvmc are not locals this change will allow little reduction in staff at the hotel and may simply force lower reimbursement rates locally.

While it is nice that government agencies may see reductions in "premiums" they are dependent upon taxes for their revenue stream. Most small retail places do not and who knows what the long term impacts of said constitutional amendment will be.

The proposed answer is treating symptoms of the underlying problems of rising health care costs and fails to address the root causes.


John Weibel 1 week, 2 days ago on Scott Marr: Amendment 69 could be devastating

The main problem with one size fits all approach here is that still there is NO connection to ones individual choices or toxins they are subjected to, which are leading to their sickness.

Working towards better individual diets and exercise will have the single greatest impact on ones health and yet we still only talk of the need to pay for sick care as opposed to working towards a world which promotes health.


John Weibel 1 week, 4 days ago on Crews on affordable units hope to put a roof on The Reserves before winter

planning, they don't want more throughput in the bottleneck one councilor told me.

probably won't matter as this round of the economic cycle is coming to a close.