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.
Can you explain what a partnership state is? I haven't heard of that and have done a fair amount of research into all this.
Also, how would having the LTC insurance for 5 years help prevent someone from being forced into a nursing home? I understand the Lookback is at 5 years now (for some states) but, if you're on LTC insurance during those 5 years won't you still be forced into a NH at the end of the 5 years when the policy is complete?
Can you explain what a partnership state is? I haven't heard of that and have done a fair amount of research into all this.
Also, how would having the LTC insurance for 5 years help prevent someone from being forced into a nursing home? I understand the Lookback is at 5 years now (for some states) but, if you're on LTC insurance during those 5 years won't you still be forced into a NH at the end of the 5 years when the policy is complete?
Thank you -
A partnership state is where if a person has a long term care policy and they file a claim, they can protect assets up to what the policy paid out in claim. Say your long term policy pays out $300,000 for care over 5 years and then runs out, you can protect $300,000 of your assets, don't have to spend that down, if you still need care and go on Medicaid. About half of the states are partnership states. You also have to have a qualified plan in a partnership state to be eligible for this plan-but most companies that sell in partnership states are qualified (but not all).
You can still be forced into a nursing home after 5 years, or 8 years or whatever, which is why we have the lifetime option on our plans-so we don't HAVE to do anything we don't want to do.
[LEFT]"John Hancock just announced that it will ask state regulators to allow it to increase premiums for many of its long-term-care insurance policies by an average of 40%. If regulators approve the request, the insurer expects to start sending notices about the increase to policyholders in early 2011 and to start raising rates in April or later.
The specific size of the increase may vary, depending on where you live and when you purchased the policy, says Marianne Harrison, president of John Hancock Long-Term Care. The increase applies to both individual and group policies, and the largest increases will be restricted to older policies."
[LEFT]"John Hancock just announced that it will ask state regulators to allow it to increase premiums for many of its long-term-care insurance policies by an average of 40%. If regulators approve the request, the insurer expects to start sending notices about the increase to policyholders in early 2011 and to start raising rates in April or later.
The specific size of the increase may vary, depending on where you live and when you purchased the policy, says Marianne Harrison, president of John Hancock Long-Term Care. The increase applies to both individual and group policies, and the largest increases will be restricted to older policies."
Stuff like that makes me wonder if it's really worth it ie vs taking that $ and socking it away in some "safe" investments and using that for long-term care when I'm old and etc.
Stuff like that makes me wonder if it's really worth it ie vs taking that $ and socking it away in some "safe" investments and using that for long-term care when I'm old and etc.
Well, that depends, how long will you need care and how much will it cost? Right now full care in a nursing home runs about $90,000-100,000/year on average around the country. Can you put enough away to cover that and any other living expenses you may have? For the $800/year we put into our LTC policies, it is WELL worth it for us. On average, a year's worth of premiums for someone in their mid-50's is about a month's worth of care. Since we bought our's earlier than that, our premiums are quite a bit lower than that.
I've been reading this thread with some interest as I'm 62 and my wife is 66. We DON'T have LTC insurance and don't plan on it. In our case it's primarily because we have enough assets to cover our care. While I realize that this happy circumstance doesn't apply to everyone, there is an aspect to the insurance carriers that DOES APPLY TO EVERYONE:
While the insurance company may NOT be able to arbitrarily raise YOUR rates, and getting a big rate increase like the Hancock one listed above needs to go through the state insurance commissioner/state lege, there is a PERFECTLY LEGAL way that they can hose you.
In your policy it will be clearly spelled out, well "clearly" is a misnomer as it's an insurance policy, but it's spelled out that they may require ALL policy holders to take a PHYSICAL EXAM to prove their CONTINUED INSURABILITY. Here's how it works;
1. You buy a policy in your 40s or 50s and pay in for 20 or 25 years.
2. The insurance company's actuaries look at the numbers and realize that their PROFIT PROJECTIONS are not up where they want them to fund their dividends/CEO's salary and bonuses. Note: I didn't say anything about potential losses.
3. In order to forestall this they tell ALL policy holders that they need to take a new physical.
4. You either fail the physical or don't take it, trust me, the odds are not in your favor. Once you no longer qualify for the pool you are OUT. You either drop into a "less desireable" pool with higher (much higher) premums, or you wave goodbye to all of the premiums you've paid in over the years.
I read how this works a few years ago in a financial advice book by a lesser known author. Sorry I don't recall his name of the book title but I think he had a talk show in either Houston or San Antonio. I'm sure some googling would turn up more info.
I've been reading this thread with some interest as I'm 62 and my wife is 66. We DON'T have LTC insurance and don't plan on it. In our case it's primarily because we have enough assets to cover our care. While I realize that this happy circumstance doesn't apply to everyone, there is an aspect to the insurance carriers that DOES APPLY TO EVERYONE:
While the insurance company may NOT be able to arbitrarily raise YOUR rates, and getting a big rate increase like the Hancock one listed above needs to go through the state insurance commissioner/state lege, there is a PERFECTLY LEGAL way that they can hose you.
In your policy it will be clearly spelled out, well "clearly" is a misnomer as it's an insurance policy, but it's spelled out that they may require ALL policy holders to take a PHYSICAL EXAM to prove their CONTINUED INSURABILITY. Here's how it works;
1. You buy a policy in your 40s or 50s and pay in for 20 or 25 years.
2. The insurance company's actuaries look at the numbers and realize that their PROFIT PROJECTIONS are not up where they want them to fund their dividends/CEO's salary and bonuses. Note: I didn't say anything about potential losses.
3. In order to forestall this they tell ALL policy holders that they need to take a new physical.
4. You either fail the physical or don't take it, trust me, the odds are not in your favor. Once you no longer qualify for the pool you are OUT. You either drop into a "less desireable" pool with higher (much higher) premums, or you wave goodbye to all of the premiums you've paid in over the years.
I read how this works a few years ago in a financial advice book by a lesser known author. Sorry I don't recall his name of the book title but I think he had a talk show in either Houston or San Antonio. I'm sure some googling would turn up more info.
I think this "advisor" doesn't understand how insurance works. What he is suggesting is actually illegal.
I've been reading this thread with some interest as I'm 62 and my wife is 66. We DON'T have LTC insurance and don't plan on it. In our case it's primarily because we have enough assets to cover our care. While I realize that this happy circumstance doesn't apply to everyone, there is an aspect to the insurance carriers that DOES APPLY TO EVERYONE:
While the insurance company may NOT be able to arbitrarily raise YOUR rates, and getting a big rate increase like the Hancock one listed above needs to go through the state insurance commissioner/state lege, there is a PERFECTLY LEGAL way that they can hose you.
In your policy it will be clearly spelled out, well "clearly" is a misnomer as it's an insurance policy, but it's spelled out that they may require ALL policy holders to take a PHYSICAL EXAM to prove their CONTINUED INSURABILITY. Here's how it works;
1. You buy a policy in your 40s or 50s and pay in for 20 or 25 years.
2. The insurance company's actuaries look at the numbers and realize that their PROFIT PROJECTIONS are not up where they want them to fund their dividends/CEO's salary and bonuses. Note: I didn't say anything about potential losses.
3. In order to forestall this they tell ALL policy holders that they need to take a new physical.
4. You either fail the physical or don't take it, trust me, the odds are not in your favor. Once you no longer qualify for the pool you are OUT. You either drop into a "less desireable" pool with higher (much higher) premums, or you wave goodbye to all of the premiums you've paid in over the years.
I read how this works a few years ago in a financial advice book by a lesser known author. Sorry I don't recall his name of the book title but I think he had a talk show in either Houston or San Antonio. I'm sure some googling would turn up more info.
You apparently didn't read the info contained in that link:
"Although Medicaid will not force her to sell the house, Medicaid does have a right to be reimbursed out of the value of the house when she dies, for the entire amount it winds up spending on her nursing home care. Medicaid accomplishes this by making a claim against her estate. To help ensure that Medicaid can collect this reimbursement, it may place a lien on the house while she's still alive. As long as she lives, however, Medicaid will not seek to enforce the lien."
I'm not worried.
"Congress has periodically tried to clamp down on abuses but usually ends up making things worse. In 1993 it passed a law requiring states to recover the cost of benefits from the estates of deceased recipients (or from the estates of the spouses they pre-decease). This bombed, as most states make only half-hearted efforts to recover Medicaid costs. In 2002, state Medicaid programs spent $46.5 billion on nursing home care but recovered a measly $350 million from estates."
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.
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.
