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.
Must be a different market in Pa. I went to NY life, AIG, Prudental, Genworth and AARP. and still haven't gotten a quote below 280.00
lol, Been having a lot of interesting conversations with insurance salesmen though.
Is that $280/month? Which comes to $3,360 per year. Which is a little over half the cost of one month of care at a decent facility. To me, that's a good deal.
Is that $280/month? Which comes to $3,360 per year. Which is a little over half the cost of one month of care at a decent facility. To me, that's a good deal.
And it is. No one here is saying you should not buy it including me. My argument in this thread all came about when someone asked where someone could get an investment that provides $5,000.00 a month and I explained in simple math that a nest egg of $500,000.00 not in used for living expenses or even discretionary spending could be put in a bank account earning virtually 0% interest would be able to be used for 8 years 4 months providing $5,000.00 monthly. Then it was pointed out that maybe there might be cost of living increases so I then provided the same situation of $500k in the same location with a 4% increase would provide somewhere over 6 years of that same income. This is money that is set aside only for long term care.
While someone is well intentioned they don't understand any plan that doesn't include LTCi. I and my wife and obviously several here as well have decided that we will self insure. We understand the risk but given the statistics provided by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners we find that with just under 75% expected to have LTC costs under $100k. Please see the information below. It is in my opinion to have a plan. If that plan includes LTCi that is what it needs. If a person or couple decides that they would rather self insure then it should be left to them to decide what is best for them.
Quote:
http://www.naic.org/documents/cipr_c..._insurance.pdf According to a 2016 report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (with credit to Christine Benz’s excellent “75 Must-Know Statistics About Long-Term Care” for directing me to the report), for people turning age 65 in 2015-2019:
48% are expected to have no long-term care costs during their lifetimes,
15.4% will have costs of up to $50,000,
9.7% will have costs of $50,000-$100,000,
11.7% will have costs of $100,000-$250,000, and
15.2% will have costs that exceed $250,000.
Another noteworthy point: people with lower incomes are more likely to have an extended need for long-term care. (See Table 5 on page 35 of the NAIC report.) This isn’t surprising, since people with lower incomes are often in worse health than people with higher incomes. But it certainly makes planning even more challenging for lower-income.
And it is. No one here is saying you should not buy it including me. My argument in this thread all came about when someone asked where someone could get an investment that provides $5,000.00 a month and I explained in simple math that a nest egg of $500,000.00 not in used for living expenses or even discretionary spending could be put in a bank account earning virtually 0% interest would be able to be used for 8 years 4 months providing $5,000.00 monthly. Then it was pointed out that maybe there might be cost of living increases so I then provided the same situation of $500k in the same location with a 4% increase would provide somewhere over 6 years of that same income. This is money that is set aside only for long term care.
While someone is well intentioned they don't understand any plan that doesn't include LTCi. I and my wife and obviously several here as well have decided that we will self insure. We understand the risk but given the statistics provided by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners we find that with just under 75% expected to have LTC costs under $100k. Please see the information below. It is in my opinion to have a plan. If that plan includes LTCi that is what it needs. If a person or couple decides that they would rather self insure then it should be left to them to decide what is best for them.
jsut curious. did you own term life insurance when you were in your 30's?
I didn't answer this, not wanting to get into too many personal details. But since I'm in the process of gathering information (that will probably include a few LTCi quotes) prior to consulting 2 financial advisors, I'll give it a go.
My personal situation is somewhat unusual in that I'm single with a daughter (still in college studying gerontological social work with experience volunteering in nursing homes etc.) AND have a large pension with portfolio substantial enough to meet the "self-insure" cut-offs. Although young, DD is very committed to not leaving our vibrant metro area for sound reasons. Once she's a tad older, my long-term plan has been to buy a second home overseas. I've never lived overseas but previously have spent a fair amount of time in third-world countries not frequently "touristed."
Given my DD's future low-paying occupation, I would like to pass on substantial assets but she'll do well even if that does not happen. The only asset that WILL for sure go to her (either through a irrevocable or lifetime trust or through direct deed) is the condo. I'll probably just put the portfolio into a living trust.
I find "LTC" statistics frustrating since most don't break out care situations or health status'. No idea WHAT I'm looking at.
The flexibility of LTCi policies have improved in recent years but it's still way too inflexible for my needs.
The "better" the policy in adjusting to various use scenarios, the more EXPENSIVE it becomes. These comments are based only on a few minutes googling but ...
For relatively minor custodial care, I'd rather pay my DD (formally) to increase her ability to completely fund retirement accounts. We're doing that now with a ROTH, not that she's caring for me! Another advantage is this permits the low care-utilization rate that many prefer. As I mentioned earlier, my experience has been that "professionals" often seek 4-hour minimums per day.
For worst-case custodial care (say, later-stage dementia), neither she nor I want her involved. At ALL. Here, I'd be very open to staying (or returning) to an overseas location. I feel very strongly about this.
A medical situation involving a requirement for skilled nursing care (say, repeated strokes) differs again. Some transition in and out of hospitals with periodic stays in rehab centers. THIS is covered by Medicare. As for interim care needs, to cover a young-age incident I may again take out term-life insurance to replenish money expended. Sure I'm rolling the dice that I die here before (say age 80). But the older I am, the shorter the care period.
Googling, there are two primary types of LTCi with various sub options. Supposedly, 90 percent are lower-cost replacement-cost policies. Most of these would not reimburse for care overseas. Those that do, do so at a substantially lower daily maximum than in the US. Some replacement policies allow for unused money to be pooled (which is a plus), except that drawing out the period at the behest of the insurance company not the patient increases the chances that benefits will never be used due to claimant death.
Replacement policies also don't provide for care by family members - except those that allow it *after* a certain amount of "professional" care has been paid for. Too, how the policy is written to define the daily benefit is important. Here, I'm guessing that the more flexibility (increasing the probability of a pay-out) the higher again the premium cost.
It's one thing to argue (correctly) that most insurance companies honor their agreements and begin payments. But to practically manage a replacement policy given some of my care scenarios seems like it would be a potential nightmare with some of the potential "return" of the policy uncollectible. I don't know if replacement policies that allow pooling are more expensive but again it draws out the return period.
Indemnity policies offer the kind of flexibility that I'd be seeking - but at a SUBSTANTIALLY higher cost.
By the time you add in all the variables - age - sex - underwriting - flexibility - possible partnership policies (not that I'm interested in a Medicaid bed) - policies offered within your state, it becomes a difficult product to want to BUY. For ME.
Last edited by EveryLady; 10-03-2017 at 06:57 PM..
well in my former line of work it was clear that very few people will need LTC insurance. My estate planning attorney wife agrees. So there is your logical counterpart.
Please share your estate planning attorney wife's logical arguments against LTC insurance.
Most things have improved over the past 20 years, including long-term care insurance. Long-term care policies that are available for sale today have much different rules and regulations than policies that were sold years ago.
Major changes were made to the LTCi industry in 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005. Many of the policies purchased before 1992 were TERRIBLE.
Most of the complaints about long term care insurance are complaints about old policies that did not receive any of the upgrades that were enacted in 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005.
I've spoken to a lot of estate planning attorneys who aren't aware of the improvements that have been made in long-term care insurance.
Over 1,000,000 policyholders have incurred over $100 Billion in LTCi claims. In 2015 long term care insurance claims were $10 billion with 268,411 policyholders receiving benefits. 2016's claims aren't published yet but will be about $12 Billion with about 300,000 policyholders receiving benefits.
None of these numbers seem like "very few" to me, but maybe it does to you.
I didn't answer this, not wanting to get into too many personal details. But since I'm in the process of gathering information (that will probably include a few LTCi quotes) prior to consulting 2 financial advisors, I'll give it a go.
My personal situation is somewhat unusual in that I'm single with a daughter (still in college studying gerontological social work with experience volunteering in nursing homes etc.) AND have a large pension with portfolio substantial enough to meet the "self-insure" cut-offs. Although young, DD is very committed to not leaving our vibrant metro area for sound reasons. Once she's a tad older, my long-term plan has been to buy a second home overseas. I've never lived overseas but previously have spent a fair amount of time in third-world countries not frequently "touristed."
Given my DD's future low-paying occupation, I would like to pass on substantial assets but she'll do well even if that does not happen. The only asset that WILL for sure go to her (either through a irrevocable or lifetime trust or through direct deed) is the condo. I'll probably just put the portfolio into a living trust.
I find "LTC" statistics frustrating since most don't break out care situations or health status'. No idea WHAT I'm looking at.
The flexibility of LTCi policies have improved in recent years but it's still way too inflexible for my needs.
The "better" the policy in adjusting to various use scenarios, the more EXPENSIVE it becomes. These comments are based only on a few minutes googling but ...
For relatively minor custodial care, I'd rather pay my DD (formally) to increase her ability to completely fund retirement accounts. We're doing that now with a ROTH, not that she's caring for me! Another advantage is this permits the low care-utilization rate that many prefer. As I mentioned earlier, my experience has been that "professionals" often seek 4-hour minimums per day.
For worst-case custodial care (say, later-stage dementia), neither she nor I want her involved. At ALL. Here, I'd be very open to staying (or returning) to an overseas location. I feel very strongly about this.
A medical situation involving a requirement for skilled nursing care (say, repeated strokes) differs again. Some transition in and out of hospitals with periodic stays in rehab centers. THIS is covered by Medicare. As for interim care needs, to cover a young-age incident I may again take out term-life insurance to replenish money expended. Sure I'm rolling the dice that I die here before (say age 80). But the older I am, the shorter the care period.
Googling, there are two primary types of LTCi with various sub options. Supposedly, 90 percent are lower-cost replacement-cost policies. Most of these would not reimburse for care overseas. Those that do, do so at a substantially lower daily maximum than in the US. Some replacement policies allow for unused money to be pooled (which is a plus), except that drawing out the period at the behest of the insurance company not the patient increases the chances that benefits will never be used due to claimant death.
Replacement policies also don't provide for care by family members - except those that allow it *after* a certain amount of "professional" care has been paid for. Too, how the policy is written to define the daily benefit is important. Here, I'm guessing that the more flexibility (increasing the probability of a pay-out) the higher again the premium cost.
It's one thing to argue (correctly) that most insurance companies honor their agreements and begin payments. But to practically manage a replacement policy given some of my care scenarios seems like it would be a potential nightmare with some of the potential "return" of the policy uncollectible. I don't know if replacement policies that allow pooling are more expensive but again it draws out the return period.
Indemnity policies offer the kind of flexibility that I'd be seeking - but at a SUBSTANTIALLY higher cost.
By the time you add in all the variables - age - sex - underwriting - flexibility - possible partnership policies (not that I'm interested in a Medicaid bed) - policies offered within your state, it becomes a difficult product to want to BUY. For ME.
It's really not that complicated. Long-term care insurance improves the odds of preserving your estate for your daughter. It's that simple.
P.S. Don't waste your time seeing a "financial advisor" unless the advisor is a fee-only financial planner.
It's really not that complicated. Long-term care insurance improves the odds of preserving your estate for your daughter. It's that simple.
P.S. Don't waste your time seeing a "financial advisor" unless the advisor is a fee-only financial planner.
The devil's in the details. Overall statistics and comparisons - averages - are a starting point but that ONLY. The more you can tweak a personal-decision by running various scenarios using YOUR best-data and personal options and lifestyle goals the better the chances of a positive outcome.
A LTCi policy is useless to me if I don't fit my use-profile into the policy terms.
If I lose the coin toss, the basics are still covered (for me, it's the condo in her name). The rest? I'll pay for the care. Love my kid, but she's had private school, college paid for, and a home deeded to her. That's a good enough start.
And, yes, I'll again visit my former (fee-only) financial planner. Oddly enough, my brokerage just sent a letter wanting to set up a consultation in the local office so I'll probably wander in there too.
The devil's in the details. Overall statistics and comparisons - averages - are a starting point but that ONLY. The more you can tweak a personal-decision by running various scenarios using YOUR best-data and personal options the better the chances of a positive outcome.
And, yes, I'll again visit my former (fee-only) financial planner. Oddly enough, my brokerage just sent a letter wanting to set up a consultation in the local office so I'll probably wander in there too.
Important? Or not the whole story? Earlier in this thread I posted this response to some data posted by Old Solider (where about 50% never needed any type of "care.")
I looked at the report quickly - including plowing thru the comments. Any idea what the 50% figure MEANS? Is it LTC where 2 or more activities of daily life cannot be performed (potentially initiating a policy claim). If so, how disabling really are these issues in terms of the care/cost profile? Or is it where a senior cannot manage their daily life without some sort of more minor (albeit vital, order in food, prepare a meal) supplemental assistance?
The distinction has enormous implications for the cost/care profile.
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.
