View Full Version : WSJ article: Health Insurance premiums to rise sharply with Obamacare (ACA)
read this in a Wall Street Journal article and here's the Huffington Post version:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/health...increases_n_2932704.html
According to the WSJ, heath insurance companies plan to increase monthly premiums for healthy people by 2 to 3 times their current rates to off-set the expected costs they will incur to cover and pay for more people with pre-exisiting conditions who's current premiums will go down. So, if this is true, than those who can't get subsidies - or only get limited subsidies - may see their premiums double or even triple. And even those who can get some subsidies may see their premiums remain basicly the same even after the subsidies are paid towards their premiums.
Another side effect (which is curently put on hold by the Obama Administration until later in 2014) is the mandated health insurance coverage paid by employers with 50 or more employees. Many smaller company employers plan to (or already have) lay off people or put them into part time positions to avoid having to pay for their medical insurance coverage. Some employers interviewed said that it would be less expensive for them to just pay the non-compliance fines each year than it is to provide medical coverage.
So affordable coverage may not be so affordable after all for many people who expected their premiums to go down after the ACA took effect in Jan 2014. Hard to force private companies to comply with lower prices when they have a captive consumer who must buy their product or that consumer will be fined.
The Wall Street Journal is owned by Fox News. I'd take anything they said with a bag of salt.
95% or so of workers in businesses with 50 or more employees have insurance coverage. The rest will be eligible for exchanges until employers come on board.
I currently pay > $12k/year for our catastrophic-and-not-much-else policy.
If that triples, I'll either have to rearrange my finances to appear "poor" to get a subsidy, or simply move to Canada or some reasonable county. No way I'm laying out $36k/year for insurance, sorry.
We each will likely occupy every notch on the continuum, from healthy to needing lots of treatment, over the course of our lives. I am not alarmed by the prognostications. I was healthier in earlier years, now I am being treated for three medical conditions, two expensive, and hopefully all from which I will recover (cancer & obstructive sleep apnea; I am losing weight to remedy the OSA, and prevent recurrence of my estrogenic uterine cancer. Knee replacement will likely eventually remedy the osteoarthritis).
My elder father receives very expensive cardiac care at least monthly, reflecting the norm in this country that the bulk of health care dollars are expended in the last three months of one's life. Two of my three young adult children have chronic conditions which are genetic in origin, and need regular care. Most of their peers do not.
Since we continue to insist that health care is a for-profit industry, how else than amortizing expensive treatment over the whole pool is it to be managed? Perhaps, if indeed the costs for healthy folks go up, some market driven changes in the quality of our food will occur.
Perhaps, since obesity has been declared a disease, when in fact it it a symptom, it will be managed appropriately, and prevention of many chronic conditions will occur (including the three I am treating). Perhaps we will move to a much more logical single-payer system. Perhaps health care will finally exit the for-profit market, and move into the much more logical not-for-profit market.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/
from this:
"We looked at the premium issue last fall when some insurance carriers in a few states announced double-digit hikes for plans on the individual market and Republicans quickly blamed the health care law. Insurance companies, regulators and experts told us the law was responsible for about 1 percent to 3 percent of rate increases in this market. And it’s the same this time around.
This year, in late September, the Kaiser Family Foundation released its annual survey of employer-provided insurance, stating that the average premium cost for family plans had gone up by 9 percent from 2010 to 2011. That’s a big jump from the 3 percent increase the year before. Again, Republicans pounced on this news as a sign of negative effects of the law. And again, experts we consulted — as well as an independent study by a large private research firm — all place the effect on premiums in the range of 1 percent to 3 percent."
So, reading the whole article we see that these huge increases are mainly due to increased health care cost, which would have happened regardless of Obamacare or not, and of course greedy insurance companies who want to fleece as much as they can before they are required to spend 80% on actual care.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/
"Leading Republicans in Congress are blaming the new health care law for double-digit rate increases being sought by insurance companies in Washington state, New York and Connecticut. But insurance regulators, leading health care experts and the companies themselves mostly blame an old culprit: rising medical costs."
Individuals who buy on the open market can see an increase, but this is what the health care exchanges are designed to keep in check. Insurance companies who wish to tap into this new big market will have to abide by rules like the %80 to health care, good policies that don't screw you just when you need them, etc...Now those who don't want to take advantage of the exchanges will probably see their costs rise, and there will be plenty of insurance companies out there willing to take all the money you want to throw at them. But, this, like everything else, is in the eye of the beholder. Some will simply refuse to go the exchange route, just like some think $1,000 jeans are better. And anyone who refuses to shop for the best deal in insurance, like anything else, probably has the money to burn. Or maybe they just want to gripe.
I'm sure every good republican out there, regardless of how they are insured now, will search and search until they find the most expensive policy possible just so they can point to it and say, 'see, told ya!';)
Since we continue to insist that health care is a for-profit industry, how else than amortizing expensive treatment over the whole pool is it to be managed? . . . Perhaps we will move to a much more logical single-payer system. Perhaps health care will finally exit the for-profit market, and move into the much more logical not-for-profit market.
+1
30% of Medicare dollars are spent in the last year of life. That's fiscally insane and borderline medical abuse. But I think even doctors and nurses feel their hands are tied because of Medicare rules.
A new book, "Knocking on Heaven's Door" http://www.amazon.com/Knocking-Heavens-Door-Better-Death/dp/1451641974/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373057571&sr=1-2&keywords=knocking+on+heavens+door
is non-fiction and tells about the author's elderly parent's experience at end of life. Basically, putting a pacemaker in a 79 year old stroke victim (her father) so that he lived 5 more long, tough medically fragile years was seen by all to have been a mistake. But since medicare pays for everything, there's every incentive to continue this madness.
I currently pay > $12k/year for our catastrophic-and-not-much-else policy.
If that triples, I'll either have to rearrange my finances to appear "poor" to get a subsidy, or simply move to Canada or some reasonable county. No way I'm laying out $36k/year for insurance, sorry.
Same here, except I'm not moving to Canada. But moving somewhere else does look better every year.
...
Perhaps, since obesity has been declared a disease, when in fact it it a symptom, it will be managed appropriately, and prevention of many chronic conditions will occur (including the three I am treating). Perhaps we will move to a much more logical single-payer system. Perhaps health care will finally exit the for-profit market, and move into the much more logical not-for-profit market.
Physicians are so far off the mark where metabolic syndrome is concerned--due to our profit-driven system--that I wouldn't hold my breath that they will ever get it right. This excellent YouTube video is worth the almost two hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vr-c8GeT34&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Jane, yup. I don't have metabolic syndrome, luckily. I am working with my stellar HMO to support me in my lifetime quest to lose AND keep 40# off. It is in their best interest to do so!!
Well, if you have a few minutes at a time, I suggest you watch the video.
If your state's health benefit exchange has been set up, you can probably now play with the cost estimate calculator. Here it is for Washington state. http://www.wahbexchange.org/news-resources/calculate-your-costs/
If your state's health benefit exchange has been set up, you can probably now play with the cost estimate calculator. Here it is for Washington state. http://www.wahbexchange.org/news-resources/calculate-your-costs/
Calif has their exchange info up as well but at this time the cost for plans are only estimates with potential changes (increases??) later. But as some have pointed out, health insurance companies saying they will triple rates may just be political talk.
Calif has their exchange info up as well but at this time the cost for plans are only estimates with potential changes (increases??) later. But as some have pointed out, health insurance companies saying they will triple rates may just be political talk.
Yes, I've wondered if they'll be able to keep costs down. I'd hate to have to pay a fine because I can't afford the premium. With the calculator, when my income stays low as I age, the premium is fairly reasonable. When my income goes up to certain levels as I age, the premiums can get kind of expensive before Medicare kicks in at 65.
Yes, I've wondered if they'll be able to keep costs down. I'd hate to have to pay a fine because I can't afford the premium. With the calculator, when my income stays low as I age, the premium is fairly reasonable. When my income goes up to certain levels as I age, the premiums can get kind of expensive before Medicare kicks in at 65.
As of now, it looks like residents of states with their own exchanges set up can enroll on the honor system when reporting income used for calculating subsidy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-insurance-marketplaces-will-not-be-required-to-verify-consumer-claims/2013/07/05/d2a171f4-e5ab-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html
I look for the rest of us to foot a much higher percentage of the bill for at least the first year.
ApatheticNoMore
7-8-13, 3:15pm
I can hardly blame someone who was being thrust onto medicaid to enroll via the unchecked honor system in the exchanges. There are good government run healthcare systems (but they usually aren't income segregated - even medicare) but medicaid in many states is really not it. I mean doctors not even taking medicaid patients. As horrible as insurance is, you don't run into that. People *over* the exchange limits for any subsidy on the other hand mostly can afford the full price, though it is extortionary.
As of now, it looks like residents of states with their own exchanges set up can enroll on the honor system when reporting income used for calculating subsidy
It seems like income estimation is a given as we will be signing up at the beginning of or before 2014 and won't really know total income until the end of the year. But with the whole system being tied into the IRS, I suspect there will be checks and balances. My understanding is that should income fluctuate, that can also be updated and reported on the exchange.
Gardenarian
7-8-13, 6:49pm
I checked our health insurance marketplace, and it looks like we'll be paying about $12,000 LESS per year with Obamacare. That's for 3 people - currently paying ~20,000.
try2bfrugal
7-8-13, 7:21pm
If all goes according to plan, it depends on our 2014 income, but I'm hoping we will be paying $20,600 LESS per year under the ACA.
As of now, it looks like residents of states with their own exchanges set up can enroll on the honor system when reporting income used for calculating subsidy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-insurance-marketplaces-will-not-be-required-to-verify-consumer-claims/2013/07/05/d2a171f4-e5ab-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html
I look for the rest of us to foot a much higher percentage of the bill for at least the first year.supposidly the subidity will be paid directly to the provider based on the projected annual income of the person and then at tax time it will be re-adjusted to reflect your actually income. In other words if your income was less than your projected amount and the gov underpayed your subsidies, you will get a higher refund. If your income was more than you projected you will owe more in taxes to re-pay the gov for your subisidies. In any case, I personally feel they will raise premiums across the board. The "mandatory" nature of Obamacare pretty much dicates that will happen. It would have been better if the Gov just offered low income people who voluntarily signed up for health insurance the subsidies rather than forcing everyone to do sign up. Price competetion for goods and services works when it's voluntary, but not when everyone must comply or be fined. No incentives for the health insurance comanies to keep premiums low in order to drum up business.
I can hardly blame someone who was being thrust onto medicaid to enroll via the unchecked honor system in the exchanges. There are good government run healthcare systems (but they usually aren't income segregated - even medicare) but medicaid in many states is really not it. I mean doctors not even taking medicaid patients. As horrible as insurance is, you don't run into that. People *over* the exchange limits for any subsidy on the other hand mostly can afford the full price, though it is extortionary.
In calif they are eliminating the asset limits to recieve medicaid (called Medi-Cal in Calif) and just basing it on income alone. Not sure what income they will consider to qualify but I have read (in a federal code thingie concerning the ACA that BUU posted awaile ago) that not only will it be your taxable income but untaxable income as well - including things like non-taxable interest income from things like 401Ks, IRAs, etc... Apparently that is also the case to recieve subisides too but I don't know if that just means ALL forms of non-taxabale interest income or just those from things like a ROTH IRA or non-taxable disability or similair that you are currently taking an income stream from. In any case, as a low-income-by-choice person who is a decade away from Medicare, I only qualify for Medicaid and not the subsidies (although I'll just dump my private insurance and use the VA hospital rather than sign up for that). Ethically I suppose I should just continue to pay for my own insurance like I do now (or get a job that has coverage) but when so many other people who are much much higher income then me can benefit from subsidies, I probably won't do the ethical thing :-)!
If all goes according to plan, it depends on our 2014 income, but I'm hoping we will be paying $20,600 LESS per year under the ACA.Geeze - how much is your annual medical insurance costs? Not to be nosey (OK so I AM nosey :-)!) but if you'll save more than $20K a year then your premiums must be several thousand a month. YIKES!!
[QUOTE=Spartana;147915]In calif they are eliminating the asset limits to recieve medicaid (called Medi-Cal in Calif) and just basing it on income alone. Not sure what income they will consider to qualify but I have read that... QUOTE]
Income will be based on MAGI - Modified Adjusted Gross Income - which is found by taking the individual's adjusted gross income and adding back certain items such as foreign income, foreign-housing deductions, student-loan deductions, IRA-contribution deductions and deductions for higher-education costs. More MAGI particulars can be found on the IRS website.
I know some view the subsidies as unethical for early retirees or persons with assets. Early retirees or persons with assets aren't necessarily rich. I don't see the subsidies as unethical because the government is making the insurance mandatory. If there were no subsidies we would be required to buy into plans that we may not be able to afford. Wouldn't that be more unethical?
I know some view the subsidies as unethical for early retirees or persons with assets. Early retirees or persons with assets aren't necessarily rich. I don't see the subsidies as unethical because the government is making the insurance mandatory. If there were no subsidies we would be required to buy into plans that we may not be able to afford. Wouldn't that be more unethical? I think that the issue of ethical or not is more based on a younger persons ability to be able work and provide a higher income for themselfs (even if they still collect subsidies) if possible rather than retirering early with a low income if they are able to work and depending on the government to provide money for their health insurance for decades. I choose to leave my job when I was 42 for no other reason than that i wanted to play beach volleyball all day long :-)! That meant I would have to fund my own health insurance. So is it ethical for the working tax payers to pay for my health insurance either with subsidies or via medicaid when I am completely physically and mentally (debatable :-)!) able to work? Especially if I have a fairly high level of assets to cover my own insurance? I personally don't think so. I don't feel it's right for people in my situation to use the higher income earners as my personal ATM to fund my health insurance so I can retire early and play - especially when I have a lot of assets. If I were ill, disabled, elderly, unemployed, poor, or a working low income earner or had very high premiums due to pre-existing conditions, then yes, those subsidies should be provided.
So while I think it would be unethical for me, or those in similair early retirement situations as me, to take the subsidies or apply for medicaid, I don't think it is unethical for people who truelly need it to reduce outragous healthcare premiums or because they are low income or unable to work. Now if my premiums went too high then I may look at things differently (and I may look at them differently once Obamacare actually begins) but I'd still believe it was unfair to have higher income earners pay more in taxes to fund my healthcare if I could find a way to do it myself by becoming employed and earning some of that money myself even if I took the subsidies to reduce those premiums to a more affordable level if my income was low.
try2bfrugal
7-10-13, 3:42pm
So is it ethical for the working tax payers to pay for my health insurance either with subsidies or via medicaid when I am completely physically and mentally (debatable :-)!) able to work?
Didn't you post in another thread that you are getting a disability pension?
Spartana - I think that the issue of ethical or not is more based on...
I think I understand your point much better now and it makes sense. Because we are the government (taxpayers or bond buyers), I tend to view government money as our money and would like to see it spent more to benefit all (ie healthcare, schools, food) instead of paying for other things like some wars, domestic spying, or other military interventions.
I tend to view government money as our money and would like to see it spent more to benefit all (ie healthcare, schools, food) instead of paying for other things like some wars, domestic spying, or other military interventions.
+1, but would like to add most foreign aid to your "instead of" list.
ApatheticNoMore
7-10-13, 9:41pm
+1, but would like to add most foreign aid to your "instead of" list.
A decent chunk of that foreign aid could be qualified as wars, domestic spying, and other military interventions. A rough calculation based on numbers at Wikipedia leaves me without 44% of foreign aid is militaristic (direct military aid, counterterrorism, war on drugs). The numbers could be a lot higher, broad categories can hide a lot.
The countries that do all their spending on things other than the military (a social safety net) are perhaps in the end little more than territories of the U.S. - they detained a head of state on U.S. say so, whether based on military or economic power of the U.S. i don't know. This hardly leaves me triumphant (U.S.A.! U.S.A.!), more just oh, so that's how the world really works.
Basically, some of the countries the U.S. is contrasted with in people's minds are not countries at all .... think about that and think about what government really is. But from the point of view of being able to influence only U.S. policy - reducing U.S. military spending can only be good.
Didn't you post in another thread that you are getting a disability pension? I have a miltary service connected disability from an injury I incurred while in the line of duty while in the service. I am getting a small disability check each month for approx $400 from dear old Uncle Sam for the loss I suffered and my inability to do the job I had trained for (although I was able to work after my time in the service). It's nothing that would allowed me to quit working in and of itself anyways and I would still have been able to retire early (at 42) without it. But I do get a regular government pension at age 50 because I was a government employee who was able to combine my military service time with a government pension. From age 42 to 50 I lived off savings. I din't have medical insurance though so bought my own ever since I quit working but I can use the VA hospital for low cost care if needed even though I still have private medical insurance policy.
I think I understand your point much better now and it makes sense. Because we are the government (taxpayers or bond buyers), I tend to view government money as our money and would like to see it spent more to benefit all (ie healthcare, schools, food) instead of paying for other things like some wars, domestic spying, or other military interventions.I agree completely. And that is why I am somewhat against the way Obamacare is being run (although I am not against most of the things that are in the ACA it just that I'm more of a "Universal healthcare For All" kind of girl). I would rather see that tax money go to providing more support and funding for low income/low asset people who have a real need rather than to someone like me who has assets and/or is perfectly capable of working to pay for my own health insurance rather than choosing early retirement. And yes, while my very small military service-connected disability check pays for a few things (beans and rice and rice and beans :-)!), it is not something that I wouldn't be willing to give up if asked to do so.
ETA: I wonder if we took a poll of just the people who read these boards how many would say they would choose to retire early (early being before 65 and medicare coverage starts) if they could get most or all of their health insurance premiums paid for under the ACA? I think it would be most people.
try2bfrugal
7-11-13, 3:51pm
I would rather see that tax money go to providing more support and funding for low income/low asset people who have a real need rather than to someone like me who has assets and/or is perfectly capable of working to pay for my own health insurance rather than choosing early retirement. And yes, while my very small military service-connected disability check pays for a few things (beans and rice and rice and beans :-)!), it is not something that I wouldn't be willing to give up if asked to do so.
You get the irony in that, right? Considering you position on health care subsidies for other early retirees. Tax dollars are paying for your disability pension and VA medical care.
You get the irony in that, right? Considering you position on health care subsidies for other early retirees. Tax dollars are paying for your disability pension and VA medical care.
Seems to me Spartana earned that *benefit*, as part of the contract when she served.
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/11/200443445/former-insurance-exec-offers-an-insiders-look-at-obamacare
An interview with Wendell Potter, the former vice president of corporate communications at the health insurance company Cigna.
You get the irony in that, right? Considering you position on health care subsidies for other early retirees. Tax dollars are paying for your disability pension and VA medical care.
I don't understand your point. I never said that people with a work-related disability or illness, etc... shouldn't recieve compensation for that. Are you saying that if you or one of your kids came home from military service with a permanent disability or illness or injury that they carry the rest of their life and effects them forever you don't think they should receive at least some minimal compensation for that? That the military should just say "thanks for your service and your leg or arm or hearing or eye sight or brain that you lost. Now go away and enjoy your life because you are useless to use now". Yes I get a service connected disability benefit of approx $400/month because I had an injury while in the service that left me with a permanent disability at the age of 29. Yes I can use the VA hospital for low cost medical care if I want. Yes I worked a full time civilian government job for many years that, combined with my military time, allowed me to get a regular pension at 50 of approx. $1100/month. But I will not get Soc Sec. Yes' when I quit my job I continued to buy and pay for my own private health insurance - and I still do and plan to in the future even if I can qualify to go on medicaid under the ACA unless, as I originally posted for this thread, prices on my monthly premiums double or triple. And then, as a person who is capable of working, would probably choose to go back to work until I was retirement age. I don't care if people want to retire early or not, my point was that "I" don't feel it is ethical for someone who IS still capable of working to retire early and go on medicaid or subsidized health insurance at the expense of others - who cannot even reap thise benefits themselves - when that money can be better used to help others who truelly need it. Now if we had true universal healthcare that meant everyone was entitled to affordable health insurance coverage and everyone had the same benefit and opportunity, then I would fully support that.
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/11/200443445/former-insurance-exec-offers-an-insiders-look-at-obamacare
An interview with Wendell Potter, the former vice president of corporate communications at the health insurance company Cigna.I agree that there is a lot of spin from conservatives about Obamacare. I personally think that rates will rise overall for many people as well as lower for others. But I don't think it will be as dramtic as the WSJ et al states. A triple digit increase, even with some of that covered by subsidies, would seem like price gouging and would be legally addressed I'm sure. Of course those people who don't qualify for subsidies - I believe a single person making over $45K a year is the cut off for subsidies - may see a big impact in their own health insurance monthly premiums even if rates go up by just a bit. Like others, I'm hoping that the Exchanges do encourage priice reductions rather than increases because I feel the private sector health insurance market prices are WAY too high. However I'm a bit of a pessimest I guess because I just don't see prices lowering.
ApatheticNoMore
7-12-13, 2:19pm
I'm really pretty skeptical of anyone who knows what will happen based on some projected (not even actual - projected) rates for their state whether the rates are pretty reasonable (California) or much less so (some other states - I'm not sure the red states are even trying to make it work either - then again CA has the kind of population to achieve economy of scale, if there's any to acheive, to a degree nowhere else does). That said I don't see the overall program of Obamacare as really addressing cost containment (it was openly admitted it didn't really) which is kind of the whole problem with healthcare - it costs too darn much! Health insurance market prices are WAY too high.
I don't see the overall program of Obamacare as really addressing cost containment (it was openly admitted it didn't really) which is kind of the whole problem with healthcare - it costs too darn much! Health insurance market prices are WAY too high.I SOOOOO agree. I am happy that it addressed the pre-existing condition issue (very much needed) and the various other issues but it didn't do anything to reduce overall health insurance costs. But, as a person who believes that private business should be able to pretty much do what it wants (with the exception of complying with certain regulations for health and safety, environmental protection, fair labor laws,, etc,,,) and charge what it wants for it's products, I don't think that it's right for the government to force them to lower rates. Now the government can offer them incentives to lower prices - and the companies that accept those incentives (tax breaks probably) will most likely get a bigger share of people buying into it's plans. As it is, By not addressing cost increases, Obamacare has actually set itself up to have to pay MORE of taxpayers dollars to private health insurance companies then originally planned if those companies raise rates. If premiums rise from $300/month to $600/month then the ACA has to provide additional subsiidy money to cover that extra cost in order to keep prices affordable for lower income people.
I'm really pretty skeptical of anyone who knows what will happen based on some projected (not even actual - projected) rates for their state whether the rates are pretty reasonable (California) or much less so (some other states - I'm not sure the red states are even trying to make it work either - then again CA has the kind of population to achieve economy of scale, if there's any to acheive, to a degree nowhere else does). That said I don't see the overall program of Obamacare as really addressing cost containment (it was openly admitted it didn't really) which is kind of the whole problem with healthcare - it costs too darn much! Health insurance market prices are WAY too high.
Single payer is the remedy.
My employer, when the Cadillac tax kicks in, is looking at a $500K annual hit for just over 100 employees. We will try to mitigate with an employer funded high deductible HSA. Obamacare will not be good for my family.
You get the irony in that, right? Considering you position on health care subsidies for other early retirees. Tax dollars are paying for your disability pension and VA medical care.
I thought about this some more - realizing my other post was a knee jerk reaction without a lot of thought - and you make a very valid point. Most, if not all public sector government jobs (whether state or federal) allow employees with 20 or more years of service to retire early (55 or so) with a pension and low cost medical coverage. All on the tax payer dime. And in the armed forces that can be as early as 38 with 20 years in. So you are right, taxpayers ARE already funding many peoples early retirement medical benefits. I guess the difference I see between the ACA and public employee medical is that 20 years or more of service on the job. With the ACA structured as it is a person can just quit their job at any age, and with no prior working life, and get coverage. So a 25 year old just out of college who decides to travel and play rather than work can get that just as easily as a 55 year old who wants to retire early. Maybe making medicare available early to those who work in the private sector and who have paid into it for years - and who will pay for part of the costs until age 65 - would be an effective way to allow people who have worked for years a way to retire early like public employees can. Although a lot of states, like Calif, have changed their retirement benefits so that new hires can't get a pension r low cost medical insurance until age 65 or later.
Just to clarify again - no I don't receive a disability pension, just a small benefit due to a permanent disability I got when injured while the armed forces. I do get a regular government pension from working for approx 25 years (give or take a few years) at government and my military combined jobs. However I don't receive medical benefits so buy my own but can also use the the VA for low cost.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.