U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2017, 09:56 PM
 
Location: SF Bay & Diamond Head
1,779 posts, read 1,417,822 times
Reputation: 1971

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Duhhhhh some of us can make commentaries about people in general with out personalizing. Truth be told as I have mentioned many times in here I got my policy 16 years ago with unbelievable benefits and a locked in premium via a professional association purchase. Oh yeah and the premium for each of us is barely over $1,400 (guaranteed not to increase) per year each with what now is a $298 per day benefit with no lifetime maximum and a 60 day elimination period. our home benefit is capped at 187K lifetime and oh yeah my inflation benefit is 5% annually.

My good fortune doesn't prevent me from understanding and expressing that not everyone is as blessed and faces choices I don't. So crow but please don't put down others you obviously know nothing about as it makes you seem like something you probably, hopefully aren't. Oh yeah the wife and I can also self pay if we needed. Again not everyone had the life choices to be able to. So yes in terms of LTCi we are similar. In other aspects of life I think not.
Um, you were the one personalizing this and trying to shame me. Humble brag much? You are the one that questioned the affordability and I was just pointing out that if you don't make a reasonable estimate of the costs you may be giving up protection because what you thought was TOO much was merely the costs of a pack of smokes a day. Foolish mistake.

Now my policy seems to be similar to yours except my premium is not subsidized. Maybe a little empathy for those of us paying retail. Yet at only the approximate cost of a pack of smokes a day I have a Rolls Royce policy. Funny that it seems like any bum on the street can afford a pack of smokes a day.

Now people is similar economic situation as me passed on this policy and wish they hadn't. I'm sure that some people that pass on it today will regret it in the future.

Now anyone should be able to estimate costs for the next ten years. If that expense is doable why not buy it and have 10 years of coverage. Then if the policy becomes too expensive you can drop it BUT if not you have the option to keep it. Either way you have had 10 years of protection at probably a pretty moderate cost. People should think of it like term life vs. whole life.

Last edited by honobob; 01-06-2017 at 10:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2017, 02:06 AM
 
71,490 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49069
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Well, we can say that it is a common thing...and then turn right around and say that even if you need it, it's likely only for a few years.

I don't doubt that it's likely to need it. But - am I willing to pay $3,000/yr in premium? How about $5k? How about $10k? Oh, does it matter what coverage that buys me? Is it worth $3k if it'll cover $500k over a period of 5 years?

Yes, it gets a bit more complicated than "yes, it's more common than a house fire" so I should get it! But at what cost and at what coverage level and for over how many years?

I KNOW you've got a helluva deal MathJak - so good that you have no realistic concerns whatsoever at this point - that's why I can't give your arguments much weight - you have a great policy that I don't have access to and will be unlikely to get anything similar EVER. To me it's almost like reading a glowing review of a product you got for free...or maybe half price and it's twice as good as anything I'll be able to get. It just has no relevance for me - sorry.
actually if you read my posts i never said "anyone " should buy insurance . in fact re-read what i said .

i said if it wasn't for the perks i would really have to consider whether a policy alone was worth doing or whether i would have to look in to alternatives.

but that has nothing to do with the fact that statistics on this stuff are very misleading and most of us will need more care than we are led to believe from those old flawed statistics.

they do not include other facility's than an snf and include data on generations ago that did not live as long and attempted more family care which more than likely turned out disastrous to the family's relationships.

if you missed what i said , here it is .
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
if it wasn't for the fact the perks are better than the policy i would have to really think about whether i would have a plan or roll the dice .

the perks in ny make it a no brainier for us . the plan is good in other states but it is not 100% asset and income protected. it reverts to a dollar for a dollar. so if medicaid pays out 400k than only 400k in assets are protected . not the deal we would want

Last edited by mathjak107; 01-07-2017 at 03:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 04:05 AM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
4,800 posts, read 4,843,254 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Well, we can say that it is a common thing...and then turn right around and say that even if you need it, it's likely only for a few years.

I don't doubt that it's likely to need it. But - am I willing to pay $3,000/yr in premium? How about $5k? How about $10k? Oh, does it matter what coverage that buys me? Is it worth $3k if it'll cover $500k over a period of 5 years?

Yes, it gets a bit more complicated than "yes, it's more common than a house fire" so I should get it! But at what cost and at what coverage level and for over how many years?

I KNOW you've got a helluva deal MathJak - so good that you have no realistic concerns whatsoever at this point - that's why I can't give your arguments much weight - you have a great policy that I don't have access to and will be unlikely to get anything similar EVER. To me it's almost like reading a glowing review of a product you got for free...or maybe half price and it's twice as good as anything I'll be able to get. It just has no relevance for me - sorry.
I know mathjak can defend himself and has. I will say even though he has policies in place that are very good doesn't mean he has no worries. At the same time he is unique among the folks here. Still you asked for what people had or are doing.

Long term care is an unknown risk for all of us. Some are going to need care while others not. Options vary to people by income, state, savings and assets. Some of us can afford it and don't buy insurance. Some people can't afford it but yet really do need it.

You asked a great question and you got some great responses. Only you can decide if LTCi is right for you. Only you can know what will work for you. Whatever you decide on becomes your plan. Honestly the is all anyone can really do is plan. Whatever the plan is you need to re-evaluate regularly making sure it is still the right path. If you decide LTCi is part of your plan go at it now. Things change fast and you might not be able to get it later. Also prices will only go up.

There are a couple options you can also choose. One is if you can self insure all or part. That will lower premiums in the latter but will freeze assets in the former. Again it is your choice. Thanks for asking the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 04:10 AM
 
71,490 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49069
premium's tend to float to the point that you pay in about 1 years cost of a snf off in the future by the time you are of age to be squarely in the danger zone .

you have to see if that is worth it to you . if we live even longer premiums may jump to trying to cover more than 1 year .

one thing is for sure . the insurer's are finding that those with policy's are using those policy's and the insurer's are paying for more things and for more people then were predicted when rates were set .

that is what killed obama care . those that spent nothing on healthcare and were not in the projections suddenly were spending because they now have the insurance to do so .

so keep in the back of your mind , if these pro's can't get the projections right as far as costs and usage ,what chance do we have figuring out how much we need to plan around .

insurance is not the only method . there are other tools , laws and method's purposely left in place that can be used. see an elder law attorney to find out what may be best for you if you have assets to work with and or preserve .

if it was meant to drive your stay at home spouse in to near impoverishment then these tools left in place would have been gone . but states do not want to eventually support 2 people on public assistance nor as one appeals court judge put it " have a state full of impoverished seniors , because we have a poor long term care system in place " . .

just as our tax system is based on your fair share of taxes is the lowest amount you can legally figure out using the laws and tools handed to you , so is our system of long term care .

in both cases if you do nothing you just get the standard gov't plan for your money instead of the plan created by you , using the tools and laws left in place for you to create your own plan ..

which plan do you want , the gov't plan or your plan ?

also ,be very careful of advice from attorney's who are not elder law specialists as far as dealing with your home by putting it in a living trust to avoid probate.

that can bite you later on ,when long term care may be needed as the house is no longer a protected uncounted asset

Last edited by mathjak107; 01-07-2017 at 04:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 04:55 AM
 
109 posts, read 101,435 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
our partnership plan is something our state put in place . in exchange for our expensive premiums they agree to not look at assets nor restrict income once the insurance runs out .

there is no look back , no recovery nor anything else on their behalf as long as you pay the premiums . those unspent premiums go to funding that medicaid .

you don't have to like the deal , this is what our state wanted . they even invented a new form of medicaid for the plans called extended medicaid .

it does away with all the normal restrictions and right to recovery .

most states today offer state partnership plans . they do not all offer total asset protection but they do offer dollar for a dollar plans .

they are cheaper but only protect what medicaid spends . so if they spend 500k on your care only 500k in assets is protected .

ny offers both full asset protection and dollar for dollar partnership plans .

our plan cost my wife and i a total of 8k a year for both of us .

we get back a 1600.00 state tax credit plus whatever we can deduct on federal . so there is a price to pay for that total protection .

homes are 120k -140k a year in our area . we took 350 a day inflation adjusted by 5% a year . but it is really the perks after we are paying for , not the 3 years coverage
So I am no expert on this stuff, but a couple of things come to mind in reviewing your plan...I have no doubt these are things you know or have considered...you seem very knowledgeable apron these matters. But, here goes:

(1) Your premiums seem super expensive. I have a very limited basis for comparison, but we pay something like $2400 per year for coverage. I forget the daily amounts and life time maximum (they are pretty substantial, inflation adjusted, etc.) Our policy is a bit unusual in that it is a joint policy...the total coverage is applied to us both, so if I need $x of care, the remainder of the lifetime coverage would be available for my wife. I know My policy is not an apples to apples comparison to yours, but after tax you are paying roughly 2 1/2 times what I am. Just seems like very expensive coverage. I have no Medicaid asset protection, however this leads me to my second point,

(2) To me the whole idea of buying LTC insurance was not to rely on Medicaid. I know ther are no certainties, but we bought a policy that based on the typical cost of LTC in our area, and based on the typical amount of time people require LTC, the policy would cover our expected expenses. We have other assets that we can use should we exceed the coverage amounts provided in the policy, but on a probability basis we are moderately over insured. We did this because we wanted to have enough resources available so that it would be unlikely we would ever need to rely on Medicaid....I have not heard great things about facilities that take Medicaid. So to me the whole idea is to have adequate coverage to avoid using Medicaid. Again, there are no guarantees, but you can make some reasonable assumptions about how much insurance to buy to avoid falling back on Medicaid.

The most important thing is that you are happy with your coverage....base on all your posts, you sound like you are in a good place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 05:12 AM
 
71,490 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49069
state partnership plans are very different than conventional plans and some like ours which are total asset protection run more .. all the states have designed their plans around a special version of medicaid called extended medicaid . when a conventional plan's insurance runs out , game over , you are on your own .

no assets are protected , no stay at home income is protected if medicaid is needed . from that point on basically you have to drain assets once insurance ends .

but not partnership plans .

state plans go on forever with extended medicaid picking up the bills . the only difference is asset protection is not open ended if your state only offers dollar for dollar plans . .

the dollar for dollar plans still protect assets but only up to what they spend .


you can not compare a conventional plan which is only for a limited time now and has no asset or income protection when it is up , with a partnership plan that takes over paying bills once your insurance is up without restricting income and assets . as long as the private home will take an eventual medicaid assignment later the shift is transparent to us .

most private homes in our area said yes , no problem if after 3 years as a paying customer taking medicaid assignments ..


these are examples of our state plans , most states offer the dollar for dollar plans , not total asset plans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
currently, there are three NYS Partnership total asset protection policies for which there are no look back or penalty periods. There is the original Partnership plan known as Total Asset 3/6/50 as well as Total Asset 2/4/50 and Total Asset 100.

Total Asset 2/4/50 offers 2 years of nursing home care or 4 years of home care/assisted living or any combination of the two. Home care and assisted living benefits are 50% of the nursing home benefit.
Total Asset 100 offers 4 years of coverage and reimburses 100% of the nursing home benefit for any level of care.
In order to encourage more individuals to plan for their care and keep the premiums affordable, the NYS Partnership introduced two Dollar for Dollar Partial Asset Protection policies. These policies protect assets equal to the amount of benefits paid. For example, if your policy paid $200,000 of benefits then $200,000 of your assets would be protected. Any assets above that amount would require a spend down for Medicaid eligibility.

Dollar for Dollar 50 offers 1.5 years of nursing home care or 3 years of home care/assisted living or any combination of the two. Home care and assisted living benefits are 50% of the nursing home benefit.
Dollar for Dollar 100 offers 2 years of coverage and reimburses 100% of the nursing home benefit for any level of care.

Last edited by mathjak107; 01-07-2017 at 05:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 06:33 AM
 
29,772 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11681
Quote:
Originally Posted by honobob View Post
Um, you were the one personalizing this and trying to shame me. Humble brag much? You are the one that questioned the affordability and I was just pointing out that if you don't make a reasonable estimate of the costs you may be giving up protection because what you thought was TOO much was merely the costs of a pack of smokes a day. Foolish mistake.

Now my policy seems to be similar to yours except my premium is not subsidized. Maybe a little empathy for those of us paying retail. Yet at only the approximate cost of a pack of smokes a day I have a Rolls Royce policy. Funny that it seems like any bum on the street can afford a pack of smokes a day.

Now people is similar economic situation as me passed on this policy and wish they hadn't. I'm sure that some people that pass on it today will regret it in the future.

Now anyone should be able to estimate costs for the next ten years. If that expense is doable why not buy it and have 10 years of coverage. Then if the policy becomes too expensive you can drop it BUT if not you have the option to keep it. Either way you have had 10 years of protection at probably a pretty moderate cost. People should think of it like term life vs. whole life.
Not subsidized at all and fully paid for by the policy holders. The company made a mistake and at one point tried to raised premiums and was challenged by policy holders and relented. The policy summary clearly stated premiums would not be raised as part of the offering. That didn't last very long as a offering but as you and others have noted it was in the earlier stages of the industry and they did what they did to get the bid. There are now multiple vendors offered through the association and they have a process to help you decide which is best for you. The insurance company used local agents to sell the policy directly to you per state insurance laws. I suspect their commission was lower than the norm in exchange for getting the business. You have no argument with me about buying the policy but I also recognize that many can't afford the monthly premium especially if they delay age wise buying it. We are very happy we have ours and know others who aren't and others who would now be reaping benefits if they had purchased when I strongly suggested they do.

Again as I noted in another thread I find humble brag to be a sorta of funny bit of jargon around here. To me it is just stating the facts as they relate to the topic whether that amount is high or low. But as always to each their own and we may all prosper on our own terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 06:39 AM
 
29,772 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11681
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfingduo View Post
I know mathjak can defend himself and has. I will say even though he has policies in place that are very good doesn't mean he has no worries. At the same time he is unique among the folks here. Still you asked for what people had or are doing.

Long term care is an unknown risk for all of us. Some are going to need care while others not. Options vary to people by income, state, savings and assets. Some of us can afford it and don't buy insurance. Some people can't afford it but yet really do need it.

You asked a great question and you got some great responses. Only you can decide if LTCi is right for you. Only you can know what will work for you. Whatever you decide on becomes your plan. Honestly the is all anyone can really do is plan. Whatever the plan is you need to re-evaluate regularly making sure it is still the right path. If you decide LTCi is part of your plan go at it now. Things change fast and you might not be able to get it later. Also prices will only go up.

There are a couple options you can also choose. One is if you can self insure all or part. That will lower premiums in the latter but will freeze assets in the former. Again it is your choice. Thanks for asking the question.
People in here are in very different circumstances and trying to compare them is impossible at times. MathJaK makes perfect sense to us as we know his situation. Not everyone does have the assets that he and others have to protect. Even if you have the assets the desire to protect vary with the individual. Some want to die broke and could care less about legacy money and for others it is very important. We know from discussions over the years what MJ's priorities are and most may not. That's why I consider the term humble brag silly. If MathJak explains his situation he is guilty of humble brag, if he doesn't folks may not understand why he says what he does. Try humble context, now that I buy into. However once again what ever rocks a participants boat may they boogie to that all day long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 06:43 AM
 
29,772 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11681
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
they only counted snf's . they did not count the other facility's or methods and places used as there is no way to count when family is doing the care taking, something they would not do when there is insurance .

it is what the insurer's in healthcare are going through . people who never seeked care are now being treated because they have insurance .
Yeah the nature of the industry has and will continue to change. What on the surface is a great policy from years ago may not allow the coverage to evolve with the health care industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 07:50 AM
 
71,490 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49069
i learned a lot about planning a road map for retirement out from my wife .

she was an upper middle class married woman prior to me meeting her 20 years later . . then tragedy hit as her fairly young husband was diagnosed with multiple myeloma .

most treatment at the time was still considered experimental and uncovered by insurance . bills were eating her alive when sam walton came in to the picture . sam had the same cancer and was running programs at a hospital in Arkansas .

he took her husband in to his program and spent 1 million dollars on him . it prolonged his life a few years and today those treatments are pretty standard .

but when he died she had a mess of investments dropped in her lap . she had no job at the time and no clue what these investments were .

so she did what she thought she should do . she went to the bank where her husband had a broker and put trust in him .

he loaded her up with dot coms and tech stocks and in no time she lost 1/2 her savings and her husband .

the point is that there is so much unknown we have to deal with that the more unknowns we can mitigate out of the equation the smoother the ride can be .

her situation highlighted to me the fact that while i make investing a hobby , not everyone else does or even understands it nor do they want their life dependent on the whims of the markets or open ended exposure health wise ..

so today we are entertaining a more integrated plan . we are mitigating the things we feel are open ended and dangerous to our financial health .


eventually we may lock in our non discretionary spending with an spia and a check in the mail box regardless of markets . our own investing for growth , inflation protecting and the wants in life as well as guaranteeing a certain amount of money to heirs through insurance ,

between our high deductible f-plan and medicare along with our nys partnership plan we pretty much capped our exposure health wise as best as we can . .

everyone needs to find a plan that fits them , but the important thing is make sure the plan is your plan and not the gov't plan .

you get no extra brownie points for going with the gov't plan and letting them go through your pockets taking what they want and leaving you and your spouse potentially impoverished ..

Last edited by mathjak107; 01-07-2017 at 08:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top