Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, I misunderstood. I mistakenly thought that the HH provision was not applicable to those who enrolled after a certain date; that was wrong. To further complicate the issue (for me) I just read that, in the event there's no COLA, even those "held harmless" would pay the increase.
OK, I misunderstood. I mistakenly thought that the HH provision was not applicable to those who enrolled after a certain date; that was wrong. To further complicate the issue (for me) I just read that, in the event there's no COLA, even those "held harmless" would pay the increase.
WTH.
that's better . i knew what you were saying didn't make sense .
the only time it does not hold is when you go over the income limits . we had an asset sale 2 years before we retired and 1 year before my wife went on medicare . we got a 300% increase because we went over the income limit even though she was already collecting .
OK, I misunderstood. I mistakenly thought that the HH provision was not applicable to those who enrolled after a certain date; that was wrong. To further complicate the issue (for me) I just read that, in the event there's no COLA, even those "held harmless" would pay the increase.
WTH.
This is also incorrect. You must have read the same stupid article that we talked about in a prior thread. The guy who wrote the article is wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.