[Jim Jones]

[quote=svelte][quote=UCGal][quote=Jim Jones]Has anyone considered what percentage of these moves may be due to relocation’s by military personnel?

I know there has been some expansion of the capacity at Naval Base San Diego.[/quote]

If it’s a reassignment to a new base – doesn’t the military do a pack-out and move? I have a number of military family friends – they’ve all been provided with moving services when they were restationed… NOT U-Haul.

I agree with the previous post about U-Haul users trending younger/broker. But I’ve also helped friends with U-Haul moves who were in their 40’s and up – but didn’t want to spend the extra thousands for a professional move. If it’s not being paid for by an employer – it’s hard to justify the order of magnitude in expense.[/quote]

Spot on. Yes, military families are moved by the military using moving companies such as Mayflower, Allied, etc.

Professionals are sometimes moved by their employer who usually use similar companies.

Everybody else will consider U-Haul as an alternative after choking on the cost of Mayflower, Allied, etc.

One final note: I have found the quality of U-Haul trucks to be so abysmal that even when I do local moves I won’t consider them. Penske has been very good to me.[/quote]

UC Gal,

You are correct contract firms are often employed but the option exists for a member to do what is called a Do it Yourself or DITY move. Many people use Uhaul and Budget to rent vehicles for their moves. A link below explains the basics of the program as well as compensation for doing the work yourself.

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Relocation_DITY.htm

[Jim Jones]

Has anyone considered what percentage of these moves may be due to relocation’s by military personnel?

I know there has been some expansion of the capacity at Naval Base San Diego.

[Jim Jones]

Has anyone considered what percentage of these moves may be due to relocation’s by military personnel?

I know there has been some expansion of the capacity at Naval Base San Diego.

[Jim Jones]

Has anyone considered what percentage of these moves may be due to relocation’s by military personnel?

I know there has been some expansion of the capacity at Naval Base San Diego.

[Jim Jones]

Has anyone considered what percentage of these moves may be due to relocation’s by military personnel?

I know there has been some expansion of the capacity at Naval Base San Diego.

[Jim Jones]

Has anyone considered what percentage of these moves may be due to relocation’s by military personnel?

I know there has been some expansion of the capacity at Naval Base San Diego.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

It’s $8,500 per person if single, and $23,000 for a family.

flu, there is a good chance that your family’s health insurance plan is not costing your employer more than $23,000. That’s why I suggested that you check with your HR department.

If your company is paying substantially more, then you really should

1/ support the Bill because you company can participate in an insurance exchange that comprises million of employees. Your company will then benefit from the rate schedules of the exchange rather than be constrained to its own small group rating.

2/ or better yet, wish for a government-run single-payer system. Your company would pay out all compensation in salaries and the government would take care of health care. One less worry for company executives.

Like ocrenter posted before, a single payer system is business friendly because it obviates the need for businesses to provide health insurance.

Additionally, employees would never be insurance-locked to jobs so they’ll be free to become entrepreneurs and innovate, if they wish.[/quote]

What the single payer system would do is externalize the costs of medial care from industry to another sector.

I like a single payer in a perfect world, but in a modern society with the costs it is not really something that adds up.

Look at the addition of user fees all over Canada and the UK for their national health services. $20 here $10 there adds up and is a form of rationing. This legislation goes in the opposite direction making all preventative care etc. free of these fees starting in 2018.

In order to control costs a free good required some rationing. When productive members of society are rationed they tend to get upset, I think that is part of the dissatisfaction with the legislation.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Author]

Posts