Military Retirement Pay / Pension

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Read this article while snooping on Air Force Times...

Consider it a learning tool for all...

**********************************************

Military pension would be hard to match

By Barbara H. Pietrowski - Special to the Times

It's fairly easy to calculate the dollar amount of a military pension after 20 years of active service, and we know a military pension is indexed for inflation so that it goes up over time as cost-of-living increases are granted.

But what is it really worth to you?

One way to answer this question is to ask: "How much money would I need in a retirement nest egg to give me a monthly income instead of my military pension?"

There are three systems for calculating military pensions, and they depend on the date you first entered service.

Under System 1, in effect for those who entered service prior to Sept. 8, 1980, retiring at 20 years is worth a straight 50 percent of final basic pay. Those who entered service from Sept. 8, 1980, to Aug. 1, 1986, are under System 2, known as "High-3," in which those who retire at 20 years receive 50 percent of their average basic pay over their final three years of service.

Those who entered military service after Aug. 1, 1986, may elect to receive retirement pay under the High-3 plan or the Career Status Bonus/Redux option. For 20 years of service, Redux offers a $15,000 cash bonus, but provides a pension of only 40 percent of average basic pay over a member's final three years and also has lower inflation adjustments than High-3 over a retiree's lifetime.

Under System 1 and High-3, basic pay in the final year or averaged over the last three years, respectively, is multiplied by 2.5 percent for each year of service, which is how you arrive at a figure of 50 percent for 20 years. For every year beyond 20, the pension is increased by 2.5 percent, up to a maximum of 75 percent of basic pay for 30 years of active service.

Under Redux, average basic pay over the final three earning years is multiplied by 2 percent for each year of service up to 20, then by 3.5 percent a year for each additional year up to 30, so that those who serve 30 years get the same 75 percent of average basic pay over the final three years of service as those who retire under High-3.

So let's take an example of an E-7 with 20 years of service. He entered service in 1984, so he's under the High-3 plan. His average basic pay over the past three years is $3,342 per month, and 50 percent of that average equals a retirement pension of $1,671 per month, or $20,052 per year.

For an E-7 who has been in the military for 26 years, retirement is calculated under System 1 because his date of entry is prior to Sept. 8, 1980. This calculation is 2.5 percent of basic pay for each of his 26 years of service, or 65 percent of his annual basic pay at the time of retirement. At current pay rates, he makes $3,855 per month, or $46,260 per year, so the pension for that E-7 retiring after 26 years of service is $30,069 per year.

Since most civilian workers today do not have pensions, they must save enough during their working years to give them a monthly income in retirement that will last their lifetime. Here's an idea of what you would have to do on your own to replace your military pension's value:

• You would have to calculate how much you would need to retire at age 65 or earlier and manage your retirement account so that it increased to this amount while you are on active duty.

• You would have to maintain your retirement kitty after you retire and invest it so that you have a monthly income.

Military pensions are guaranteed, but managing your money to create your own pension is not. Military pensions also are adjusted each year for inflation, although the adjustment is often less than the actual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index.

So, going back to the E-7 with 20 years of service, what is his military pension of $20,052 per year really worth? Most experts agree that to ensure your retirement funds will last a lifetime, you cannot take out more than 4 percent of your capital each year. If you wish to increase your retirement income each year to keep up with inflation, a 3 percent withdrawal from capital each year is a more reasonable figure. To replace an annual pension of $20,052 based on a 3 percent withdrawal rate, you'd need $668,400 ($20,052 divided by 0.03 equals $668,400).

What is the possibility of accumulating $668,400 over 20 years on your present salary? Even if you assume you can take out 4 percent of your nest egg each year and not use up your money in your lifetime, you'd still need a nest egg of more than $500,000, without allowing for annual increases for inflation.

A pension of $30,069 per year would probably require $1,000,230 in retirement savings.

It is possible to purchase a retirement annuity for you and your spouse with your retirement nest egg. This would give you guaranteed income for life, but it would not increase each year to adjust for inflation. So in 36 years at 2 percent inflation, your money would be worth half as much and your lifestyle in retirement would decline.

Bottom line: A military pension is a very valuable benefit. If you had to save the money to provide your own pension, you would need at least $668,400 to create a pension of $20,055 per year adjusted for inflation. And the continued payment of the monthly pension would depend on the performance of your investments.

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Additional info on the subject...

*************************************************

Retirement pay calculator

Military members receive retirement pay under one of three pay systems: “Final pay,” “High-3” or “Career Status Bonus/Redux.” The rates of retired pay depend on your years of service before retirement and vary from system to system.

How the three systems work:

Final pay

Open to those who entered service before Sept. 8, 1980. Those who retire at the 20 year mark receive half their final basic pay. For each year of service beyond 20, the retirement check is increased by 2.5 percent of basic pay, up to a maximum of 75 percent of basic pay for 30 years of service.

High-3

Open to those who entered service on or after Sept. 8, 1980 but before Aug. 1, 1986. The retired pay rate is determined by the average pay rate during the three years when an individual’s pay was highest during his or her military career. That average is multiplied by 2.5 percent for each year in uniform to determine retirement pay. Thus, for 20 years of service, the High-3 formula offers retirement pay equal to 50 percent of average basic pay over the member’s last three earning years.

Career Status Bonus/Redux

Those who entered military service after Aug. 1, 1986. can choose to receive retirement pay under the High-3 system or can choose the CSB/Redux option. Under the Redux plan, a service member at 14 years and 6 months of service who agrees to remain in uniform at least five more years may elect to receive a $30,000 bonus, either as a lump sum or in annual installments, at the 15th year of service. But retired pay for 20 years of service is lower — only 40 percent of average base pay over the three highest-earning years. That increases by 3.5 percent a year for each additional year beyond 20. At 30 years of service, the retirement pay rate is the same as the High-3 system — 75 percent of average basic pay over the three highest-earning years — but yearly cost-of-living adjustments are 1 percent lower. A one-time “catch-up” adjustment is made at age 62.

Calculators

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness offers retirement calculators on its military compensation Web page. Available calculators include: Final Pay, High-3, CSB/Redux and a retirement choice calculator that compares High-3 and CSB/Redux.

https://www.dod.mil/militarypay/retirement/calc/index.html

[M2]

Let me tell you from firsthand experience, the retirement check is a good thing! Add some VA disability on top of that, and make an effort to live a long life, and you will be sitting pretty.

However, all that said, don't place all your eggs in one basket. Invest as much as you can, as wisely as you can. You can never have too much money!

Cheers! M2

[pcola]

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

A pension of $30,069 per year would probably require $1,000,230 in retirement savings.

I don't buy it.

I agree that a military pension is very valuable - but not that valuable. The author is conveniently neglecting interest accrual in their calculations. I'm too lazy to do the actual math right now to come up with an actual number about how much you would need to sustain a $30K income, but a quick calculation tells me that its not a million bucks. If you had $1,000,000, you could split that up into several different federally insured savings account and earn 5% and be 100% safe. That would bring in $50k/year. With a bit more risk you could leave it invested in mutual funds and expect to earn around 10% which would bring in $100,000/year (duh) without ever touching the principle.

I'm not knocking the value of the military pension, I plan on having one. But $30K per year is not the same as having a million bucks in the bank.

[Wang Wei]

Originally posted by pcola:

I don't buy it.

I agree that a military pension is very valuable - but not that valuable. The author is conveniently neglecting interest accrual in their calculations. I'm too lazy to do the actual math right now to come up with an actual number about how much you would need to sustain a $30K income, but a quick calculation tells me that its not a million bucks. If you had $1,000,000, you could split that up into several different federally insured savings account and earn 5% and be 100% safe. That would bring in $50k/year. With a bit more risk you could leave it invested in mutual funds and expect to earn around 10% which would bring in $100,000/year (duh) without ever touching the principle.

I'm not knocking the value of the military pension, I plan on having one. But $30K per year is not the same as having a million bucks in the bank.

Don't forget to add the military pension cost of living adjustments into the equation.

EDIT:

Turns out your right - I ran the numbers - $30K a year (year 1) payout over 30 years, with 2.5% per year cost of living increase per year, assumming 5% return, is worth about $600,000 in todays dollars.

[ 01. February 2007, 18:26: Message edited by: Wang Wei ]

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Pcola, Wang...

Are you reading the same article that I am...

It is answering the question "How much money would I need in a retirement nest egg to give me a monthly income instead of my military pension?"

If I were a civilian worker:

I would need to have saved $1,000,230 over the duration of my career - assuming that I want to withdraw the above recommended 3% (equates to $30,069). You won't find many civilian careers that can nest you that much from enetering at age 18 and retiring at age 44...such as Joe Bob, below without having to sock a single penny into the equation. Remember, this is assuming no TSP/401(k).

Let's say Joe Bob was a 26 yr MSgt, he's under System I of the retirement system (see above). This calculation is 2.5 percent of basic pay for each of his 26 years of service, or 65 percent of his annual basic pay at the time of retirement. At current pay rates, he makes $3,855 per month, or $46,260 per year, so the pension for that E-7 retiring after 26 years of service is $30,069 per year. Remember, he is going to retire w/ 65% of his base pay!!!

The article is comparing what you would have to save in the civilian world as compared to the military....no reason to add COLA into the equation. I actually think it's a well versed article that can open a few eyes if you calculate it correctly...

Let's play the following role:

My intention is to retire at 22 yrs, hopefully make O-4, and bolt. I'm under the "after 1986" as most folks on here are.

Assumptions:

1.) 28% tax bracket

2.) 55% return (50% =20 yrs, plus 2.5% x 2 yrs)

3.) Utilizing High 3 plan

4.) Retire at 22 yrs of service

5.) Age upon retirement - 43

6.) Expected longevity - 80

7.) No pay increases or inflation adjustments

Base Pay: 6252.30 x 12 months = $75027 x 28% (tax) = ~ $54000.

$54000 x 55% = $29700 annual return for the rest of my life.

37 x 29700 = $1,098,900 in guaranteed income - no inflation, returns, etc - that my civilian counterpart would have to HOPE to have saved/invested/ etc...

Pcola, You are looking at 5% return, but the author was utilizing a much more conservative 3%...which by then is a much more accurate spending % than 5% (IMHO) once you are looking at those stages of your life (house = paid off, golf = everyday, kids - all grow'd up, etc).

**Edited for math**

I still don't see where you guys are looking???

[ 01. February 2007, 20:27: Message edited by: C-21 Pilot ]

[Odium]

I think they are referring to the fact that simply drawing a guaranteed 5-10% interest from a no risk bank account on that $1,098,900 would equal $50-100k/interest a year so its not as simple as multiplying the desired yearly income by the number of years you plan on living off it.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

It's worth more than $1,000,000 to me.

I consider my retirement worth $1,021,000. I calculated it based on 0 years to retirement, 0 annual contribution, 3% inflation and 6% return (which I consider a reasonable, if not a bit optimistic, return on a no risk investment vehicle) assuming I live another 40 years.

Anyway you slice it it's a damn good deal.

There is nothing like residual income.

[Combat Platypus]

Don't forget about healthcare. I don't see much now, but hope to in 30 years, maybe less.

Also, this is about the only pension left in the US that is really guaranteed, just ask everyone that is employed by a company that is in chapter 11.

[Wang Wei]

C-21,

I was doing my calculations based on the 26 yr MSgt example, assuming he started his career at 29, and lives to 75.

We're all doing apples to oranges comparisons. What it all comes down to is this - the longer you live, the more valuable a pension becomes, expressed in today's dollars. So don't go out and get yourself killed.

The military is probably the last place where a blue collar guy (enlisted) can put in his 20 years enjoy a guaranteed pension.

The one better deal I know of is big city police and fire department pensions. Typically, they retire at a % of base pay that is a function of the years they have in (ie - 30 years = 100%, 25 years = 80%, and so on). The trick they use is to PILE ON THE OVERTIME your last year, as the pension is based on what they earn the last year they work!

[DigDug]

I agree the article does a good job at showing the value of a military pension. I also agree that saving $1,000,000 over the course of a 26 year career would be next to impossible for a comparable person on the outside. But at 3% (easy to find VERY secure investments at this rate) interest, $1,000,000 would draw $30,000 per year and you never touch the principal! Your kids are millionaires when you die.

Along this same line of drawing from the interest. If you want to earn $30,000 per year in interest and get between 5%-10% interest from your investments (should be a farily reasonable assumption - heck you can get saving accounts at 3%) you'd have to save $400,000 (assuming a 7.5% average interest rate). Assuming the same 26 year career and NO employer matching contributions (many employers do matching), this calculator: Here says you'd need to save $403.36 per month at 7.5% interest rate. Not terribly unreasonable ($200 per paycheck) over the course of a career.

It almost seems like the article "left out" some of those important points. That is what makes it border on propoganda.

[LJ Driver]

Originally posted by M2:

Let me tell you from firsthand experience, the retirement check is a good thing! Add some VA disability on top of that, and make an effort to live a long life, and you will be sitting pretty.

I heard that unless you are 50+% disabled then the disability you receive is deducted from your retirement pay. Is that true? It makes no sense. Anyone?

[Guest rotorhead]

"Disability" is a very misunderstood item.

If you are due $100 in retirement pay, USAF pays $100, and you are taxed on all of it.

If you are "10% disabled" then:

If you are due $100 in retirement pay, USAF pays $90, and you are taxed on that, but the VA pays $10, and you are NOT taxed on that.

The TOTAL GROSS is the same, but the more "disabled" the more slice of the pie is nontaxed.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

I understood exactly what Rotorhead was talking about during my out briefing. I was just so put off by the way the VA guy was going bananas trying to get everyone to figure out something they could call a disability, like he was working on commission or something.

I had 60% hearing loss over a 20 year career. I was on the USAF hearing retention program and saw civilian specialists to reset my baseline three times. The VA guy told me I should file for disability. I didn't. It just didn't seem right at the time since I had friends who were legitimately disabled in a much more severe way. I don't feel disabled and it doesn't seem right to try to get out of paying taxes by saying I'm disabled when I don't feel like anything is wrong.

However, it has been pointed out to me by my civilian co-workers that I don't hear very well. My family has always joked about it and I know that they know the exact volume to hold a conversation without me knowing what they are saying. I can hear them talking but I can't understand what they are saying. I never noticed that before...I thought that's the way it was for everyone.

I remember the VA guy saying it was almost impossible to get any disability after separating. I might have made a mistake...I might be wanting those free VA hearing aids when I turn 75.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by Wang Wei:

$1,000,000 will be worth $411,986.76 in 30 years, at 3% annual inflation. Moreover, your $30,000 per year will buy you $12,359.60 worth of beer in 30 years.

But, with a military retirement the $30K will be $53K in 20 years and $71K in 30 years.

It should always buy you $30K worth of beer.

A Lt Col today will like retire at roughly $40K a year. He will be getting paid $52K in 10 years, $70K in 20 years, $94K in 30 years and $127K in 40 years.

Toss in free health care (especially if you have a family) and you've got a really great gig. Best part is, all you have to do is fog the mirror and the check shows up.

[Herk Driver]

Retirement compensation calculator

May have been posted already but this link does a pretty good job of showing most people what will work out best for them.

The first article is flawed since it claims you get a $15K option at 15 years. It has already been correctly pointed out that it's a $30K option. Barbara also fails to point out the "catch-up" adjustment done at age 62.

If you stay for 30 years, you make out huge by taking the $30K.

[ 05. February 2007, 11:42: Message edited by: Herk Driver ]

[Butters]

Thread revival:

Anyone coming up on 15 years or past that and took the 30K CSB? To me it looks like if you make it to 26 years you have got made. Any math guys out there know what you lose it you retire at 20 years and only get 40%?

[Jughead]

Anyone coming up on 15 years or past that and took the 30K CSB? To me it looks like if you make it to 26 years you have got made. Any math guys out there know what you lose it you retire at 20 years and only get 40%?

No--because of the 1% lag in annual COLA adjustments, the REDUX sucks even if you go to 30 years (75%). Only three reasons to take the CSB:

- You have an emergency that $30K (less taxes!) will cure, you have NO other way to get the money, and you need it right frickin' now

- You're a money guy, savvy w/ the market (etc.) and willing to put the time & effort required into investing that $30K (less taxes!)... AND you're willing to roll the dice that you can keep that far enough ahead of the 1% compounding loss you will see every year for the rest of your life

- You're seeing dollar signs and simply don't understand the power of compounding

Unfortunately, 99+% of the folks I've seen taking the CSB fall into category 3.... One (*one*) dude I know falls into category 2--time will tell, and I wish him luck.

There's a reason that REDUX was eliminated as the only retirement. The "Choice" program that we now have (i.e., "choose" either High-3 or REDUX) was instituted only because REDUX was turning out to be a huge drag on retention--with good reason.

Over the course of your (hopefully long) life, that 1% will eat you alive. Of course, if you plan on dying within a few years of retirement, disregard all....

[Pancake]

I did a quick spreadsheet on various retirement and civilian pay combinations, with my personal plans included. I'll PM if you want to see it; can't attach excel spreadsheets.

Assumptions:

1. All in 2011 money (present value)

2. AD AF pilot at Davis-Monthan AFB, with gate months beyond 20 years

3. Airline pay based on Delta, bid next airframe every 2 years

4. Retire as an O-5

5. Civilian salaried jobs include a 2.5% annual increase to spread promotions evenly over career

6. All scenarios include equal risk (risk not factored into calculations)

7. Inflation equals COLA (CPI)

8. Taxes limited to federal income tax

9. Retire at age 65

10. No regard for cost (cost of living in DC versus Jackson, MS, for instance)

Not a lot of financial analysis required when everything is in today's money. However, the BL is that retiring and going to the airlines is the least lucrative option for pilots. The most lucrative option is separating, getting a high-paying job (starting at $120K with 2.5% annual increase over career), and staying in the ANG/AFRC until retirement.

Also, note that earning a usable AAD while on AD is more lucrative than saving the GI Bill for the kids. The net income increase of having a usable AAD more than offsets the cost of sending 2 or 3 kids to expensive private colleges over a professional career.

Personally, I really want to go to law school, but the airlines "looked" too good to pass up. While I know Delta gets a new contract in January (?), I have to make my stay in/get out decision this week. Still trying to convince the wife that going to law school now is better than going later (when, as an "old man," I may not want to go).

If you want to look at this thing, let me know and I'll send it (unable to upload excel).

Retirement value for a 20-year O-5, living until 85 Y/O: $1.77M, assuming inflation = CPI increase (in 2011 dollars).

Edited July 18, 2011 by Pancake

[Jaded]

I've seen a different spreadsheet that I think Hacker did that comes to some very different conclusions.

Here is the three things he compared:

SCENARIOS:

1. Stay in the AF, take the bonus, make O-4 and retire as an O-4 at 20, then hired at SWA (with AF retirement pay)

2. Stay in the AF, take the bonus, make O-4 and O-5 and retire as an O-5 at 20, then hired at SWA (with AF retirement pay)

3. Leave AF at 10, get hired by SWA

TOTAL AGE 32 to 65 EARNINGS:

Scenario 1: $5,728,034.00

Scenario 2: $5,861,405.84

Scenario 3: $5,535,504.00

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/196328-post4.html

The assumptions he uses are in that post.

The numbers change a lot depending on what you're comparing. I was surprised to see that even with a 10 year commitment, missing out on AD retirement may only cost you 5% of your total income. Seniority at the airlines is that important. If the outside world is an increase in quality of life, is the extra 10 years of AD worth the 5%?

[Hacker]

I did a quick spreadsheet on various retirement and civilian pay combinations, with my personal plans included.

Recommend you also throw this analysis in to this thread on Airline Pilot Central:

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/60658-should-i-stay.html

I've seen a different spreadsheet that I think Hacker did that comes to some very different conclusions.

There are a number of things that changed since I did that comparison in 2007...but the bottom line remains the same.

Note that my analysis DID NOT include a job with a reserve unit in the "get out at 10 years" scenario, and that was intentional. That was based on some advice I received from a friend who was (is) flying for the Guard:

A good friend of mine flies for an ANG fighter unit. About 4 years ago I was kicking around the idea of getting out at the end of my commitment and doing just what CAL mentioned...flying for the Majors and a ANG/Reserve squadron.

The advice he gave me in one single sentence made me reconsider that:

"You've got your family, your airline job, and your Guard job that you have to do all at the same time. Pick two of them, because you won't be able to do all three very well simultaneously."

The implication, obviously, was that if I was unhappy with how much time I was spending away from home on Active Duty, that the scenario I was thinking of was certainly going to be as bad, if not worse.

His advice? Either make a clean break from the military and just be an airline pilot, or stick with the military until retirement and then move to the Majors.

I certainly can't speak with any experience, and I know that there are a lot of airline guys that fly for the reserves and make it work, but several other pilots from my friend's ANG unit all agreed with the advice.

Lots of good discussion (and alternate viewpoints) in these threads:

Initial thread from 2007: https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/14632-should-i-stay-should-i-go.html

Similar discussion from 2010: https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/54145-grass-greener-military-airlines.html

[nsplayr]

Hell, even TRICARE is going to get cut to the bone eventually; it's just a matter of time.

I just highly doubt this. Remember the very recent uproar with very modestly raising rates on tricare? The first rate-hike in over a decade I think? It was ridiculous, to the point that to me, some groups were discredited by their hard and fast, line in the sand "no increases EVER" stance when what the DOD was proposing was a very small increase in premiums that are far, far below civilian world standards.

To me, military healthcare will be one of the last things to get cut, the emotional argument of the vets with their freaking legs and hands blown off. The argument that even above pay, that vets who have put their lives on the line for the good of the country deserve good medical care at low cost is extremely politically and morally powerful.

20 years is like saying "all or nothing lifetime commitment", but 10 years is a reasonable stretch for a non-lifer to get at least a little bit of return to make it worth it.

I've argued this numerous times that more people, especially non-rated officers, would stick around longer if you were vested before the all-or-nothing of 20 years. When your commitment is up at 4 years and you're looking at a long 16 more years when you've already had a big spoonful of BS it's a difficult decision to stay. I don't know a single one of the non-rated guys I commissioned with who's staying more than 2-3 years past their commitment (mostly due to taking TA too late to punch at 4).

Edited July 18, 2011 by nsplayr

[spaw2001]

That's exactly what they want you to think.

Right on...I have been on a little bit of a forum rampage over the last week. I was also commenting in the education forum the other day. Here are some observations I have made with us AF flyers and the "pigeon hole'ing" concept I made in my last post.

I was an interservice transfer, so my initial officer training was with the Army. The Air Force, by its very nature is much more technically based and there is great emphasis on operating a machine. Yes, it is complex and safety is paramount, but I have noticed that this forces officers into a very narrowly tracked mindset that we need to break free from. Basically, here is the mentality of many pilots:

I want to go to pilot training-what plane am I going to fly?-What base?-Why does the Air Force want me to do other things other than fly?-Wait, I have to get a masters degree?-Screw it, I'll just check the box.-Boy, I need to serve 20 to get that pension.-But, this kinda sucks, so maybe I'll get out in 10 years. Hopefully, the airlines are hiring because all I can do is fly.

Really?? Countless of my Army buddies are getting out, and getting good jobs and attending top business schools. I didn't know that Infantry or Armor had a good civilian market. They are being hired for and selling themselves as disciplined officers and leaders. Academia and the business world are eating it up, especially after the financial market's ethics issues that unraveled in '08.

Why don't we sell ourselves as the same? Even single seat fighter pilots are leading people while operating a complex machine (Flight Lead, Intructors, EPs... And, anyone that flies a heavy and is leading a small team around foreign environments) I am tired of watching people desperately gauging their life and future on whether the airlines open the flood gates. If you love flying, then as I mentioned in my last post, great...go fly and hopefully the airlines work out. There is nothing wrong with that. But, there is also great opportunity for other things. Yet, because we are on active duty with longer commitments, we will have to develop other skills and interests to prepare for a career change...and perhaps not always just "check the box."

Attached article from Harvard shows how they recognize the value and unique leadership traits from all the services...

Which of These People Is Your Future CEO?1.pdf

Edited July 19, 2011 by spaw2001

[Hacker]

My only thing with Hackers analysis is that it assumes you go work for Southwest Airlines. What about jobs outside the aviation world? Ive watched my dad as an airline pilot for the last 20+ years and it ain't what it used to be...Why do we pidgeon hole ourselves so much? There are plenty of opportunities and great return on investments if people can just let go of flying. But, if flying is the priority, which i am sure it is for some, then I guess the monetary argument doesn't really matter

Exactly -- some of us aren't on a tail-chase for the biggest dollar. Some of us like flying and want to keep doing it professionally.

[nsplayr]

Figured this was appropriate here...McCain eyes barring retirees from Tricare Prime. Selected quotes:

In the mix is a radical proposal from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would have potentially far-reaching effects on the health care of retirees and active-duty family members. McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has proposed barring military retirees from signing up for Tricare Prime, the least expensive Tricare option available to them.

McCain himself says, "As someone who has committed his life to serving our nation and the men and women who protect it, this was not an easy decision. I believe we must all share in the burden to ensure that our nation’s debt does not imperil our economic and security future. Supporting modest Tricare reform to protect the long-term viability of this important program is a step we must strongly consider."

Edited October 28, 2011 by nsplayr