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 Yesterday, 02:36 PM
 
1,150 posts, read 512,387 times
Reputation: 3078

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kavm View Post
To elaborate - this insurance seems to involve a moral hazard for the insurance company. The younger subscribers are less likely to collect. They are mostly contributing to the pool when they are younger. Obviously - as they grow old, their chances of collecting go up (more than the premiums would justify). So, it's in the insurance of the insurance company to have the subscribers drop out when they get older. What stops them from exorbitantly increasing the premiums to them later on?

Rate increases have to be filed with state insurance regulators. The regulator may approve the proposed increase, or reject altogether, or approve a smaller increase than requested. The larger the requested rate increase, the more solid the justification has to be from the company (generally historical and anticipated claim levels).


FWIW, the increase has to be filed separately for each state, and it's a lot of work to prepare the filings and possibly go back and forth with the regulators. As a practical matter, it's likely feasible at most annually. It may also specify the timing in your policy (contract) if you still have that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 02:43 PM
 
Location: SLC
507 posts, read 447,620 times
Reputation: 943
IndyDancer -

Our policy started in 2014. So, it's not that old. It has a
  • Lifetime Max Benefit - now 1.35 million (was wrong earlier)
  • Max Facility Care - $371 per day
  • Max Home Care - not to exceed 75% of the facility care
  • World wide coverage $187.5 per day (not sure the facility care above excludes out of US facilities)
There are a few other benefits - but these are the main ones. I did not see any max years limit. Also, if there is a limit on how much the premiums can increase or how frequently - it's buried in the fine print somewhere. I did not find it in a cursory reading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:50 PM
 
73,066 posts, read 72,858,103 times
Reputation: 50619
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavm View Post
That's about where we were before the latest increase. Now it is about $9000 for the two of us - and there is no credit from the state. Our coverage is a bit higher. I am frankly not concerned about the current (increased) premium level - but about the seemingly unclear rules around the rules around when and/or how much the premiums can be increased in the future. For instance, if the insurance company wanted to get rid of the insured - could it, say, change the premium from $4,600 to $46,000? A ridiculous example but I am wondering if there is any control on the frequency and amount/percentage of increase?

To elaborate - this insurance seems to involve a moral hazard for the insurance company. The younger subscribers are less likely to collect. They are mostly contributing to the pool when they are younger. Obviously - as they grow old, their chances of collecting go up (more than the premiums would justify). So, it's in the insurance of the insurance company to have the subscribers drop out when they get older. What stops them from exorbitantly increasing the premiums to them later on?
i look at the insurance like i do all our insurance ..we are paying for coverage today and being covered for the year ..if tomorrow is to much money , so be it .. we are paying for being covered now for the year just like our auto insurance . if it gets to crazy we don't renew it . in the mean time we were covered for that money up to then .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:54 PM
 
Location: SLC
507 posts, read 447,620 times
Reputation: 943
Understood. It is indeed the same for the LTC policy too. However, if it were all there was to it - the premiums would be rising every year as one grows older, and they'd drop people above 75 (for example) from coverage altogether. That's not the case so far. They may not insure people at 75 but they don't drop them. So, their prior year(s) insurance does impact the premium and the ability to be insured. Hence, the premium for this year is buying you the option to be insured next year with some semblance of control over costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:54 PM
 
2,213 posts, read 932,972 times
Reputation: 5417
Having visited many nursing homes as a volunteer entertainer I wouldn't want LTC and don't have it. I believe I'd be better off dead than having to be fed and diapered and washed like an infant.
At 73, all of our parents and aunts and uncles and even some cousins are gone. None of them needed long term care.

I googled LTC and this is the first thing that came up.

“You pay for the insurance and when it's time to collect the benefits, you get the bad news.” The conventional wisdom of financial planners on whether to buy long-term care insurance is this: If you're wealthy enough to self-insure, you should. If you're poor, you can expect Medicaid to pay your long-term care costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:48 PM
 
6,713 posts, read 2,488,462 times
Reputation: 4694
Take care to do the right things to live to a ripe old age yet when you get there you need to pay for care that you can't afford and Medicare only pays up to one month I think at a nursing care facility, the rest has to come out of our pockets? If you can't afford it, apply for Medicaid? Sobering to think about, but everyone's going to get old if we are fortunate, the trick is to stay independent, mobile and reasonably healthy to enjoy a high quality of life, it wouldn't be fun anymore like bobspez said being fed, diapered and washed and if it were only that, I think if the mind is still working at least it would be spent worrying about the cost of long term care. It's an industry that is going to morph into a huge moneymaker, that is what is worrying, when it turns into big business. It wouldn't be about care anymore but the profit and overhead for each resident.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:54 PM
 
6,713 posts, read 2,488,462 times
Reputation: 4694
In some cultures, the elderly had family to look out after them. I know that is sometimes not realistic. I thought of a tv documentary I saw where there were all these over 100 year old people living in a village in Italy. They said the secret wasn't really great health care. Yes, they may eat a healthy Mediterranean diet, but the secret the experts said kept these very elderly people alive was the feeling they had that they would and always be taken care of by family and friends and the other villagers. The feeling that they would be in good caring hands did amazing things - the village had one of the lowest heart disease rates and illnesses. They didn't have to worry about the cost of long term care, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:12 PM
 
Location: SLC
507 posts, read 447,620 times
Reputation: 943
It is not about care - whether one gets it in a facility or home. It is about money - and how to pay for LT care. Of course, one could take actions to end life, but things are sometimes not so cut and dried. Who knows what situations and options life presents us. We could self-insure and I was unsure about buying it. But, we do not have family in the US. No children either. And, the care costs are going to rise due to the demographic changes. So, it seems like the prudent thing to carry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:55 PM
 
5,817 posts, read 9,397,247 times
Reputation: 6037
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez View Post
Having visited many nursing homes as a volunteer entertainer I wouldn't want LTC and don't have it. I believe I'd be better off dead than having to be fed and diapered and washed like an infant.
At 73, all of our parents and aunts and uncles and even some cousins are gone. None of them needed long term care.

I googled LTC and this is the first thing that came up.

“You pay for the insurance and when it's time to collect the benefits, you get the bad news.” The conventional wisdom of financial planners on whether to buy long-term care insurance is this: If you're wealthy enough to self-insure, you should. If you're poor, you can expect Medicaid to pay your long-term care costs.

That was exactly what we decided some 7-8 years ago when my workplace offered LTC insurance, and we did the research. Longevity runs in my family, but the daily benefits the insurance offered were somewhere around $110. Now we're getting the same offer, $110 a day. Is it even worth paying a premium for, since there is no guarantee that the benefit will be insured against inflation? By the time we need it, it may be worth as little as $10 today...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Virginia
4,070 posts, read 2,118,867 times
Reputation: 11272
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavm View Post
It is not about care - whether one gets it in a facility or home. It is about money - and how to pay for LT care. Of course, one could take actions to end life, but things are sometimes not so cut and dried. Who knows what situations and options life presents us. We could self-insure and I was unsure about buying it. But, we do not have family in the US. No children either. And, the care costs are going to rise due to the demographic changes. So, it seems like the prudent thing to carry.
I was very worried about it several year ago and applied for a Federal LTC policy. I had heard that people who had serious medical conditions were accepted for the Fed program, but I was rejected. My main concerns at that time were a family history of Alzheimers (Mom) and ALS (Dad) and the fact that I have no one to take care of me if I become ill and incapacitated. Of course, once I was rejected, that meant that getting a LTC policy from any insurer was going to be pretty difficult and more expensive. And since my heart attack last year, I can't get one at all. On the "positive" side, I no longer worry so much about lingering for years in assisted living or memory care, as I'm much more likely to just drop dead.
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

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