The futility of saving for retirement (conversation, dump, relatives, married)
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.
You have a 5% chance of ending up in one. Most of these are probably people who don't take care of themselves, smoke, drink heavy. No exercise. Yes there are the unlucky ones.
Your children deserve the life THEY make for themselves. Stop the helicopter parenting. $100,000 given to kids who never had money will be gone in 6 months for crap. They don't have money cause they don't know how to handle it.
Really you want to suck of the crappy medicaid the government provides.
People are suppose to give up on saving for retirement cause you have a 5% chance of ending in a nurisng home. That is 5 out of 100. Do the math.
Don't want to go to one and give the kids an inheritance. Oregon has dr assisted suicide.
(plus, these facilities are not actually any worse than their privately-paid counterparts, except for the fact that you have to tolerate a roommate in the same room if you are in a Medicaid place).
I don't know where you live but the ones I've seen are hellholes. YOU ARE NOT getting the same care as the private countr parts. Or the private counter parts would not be spending their money in that facility.
My plan is to pay for LTC insurance as long as I can budget for it. It's a priority behind home, utilities, food, transportation, regular health care.....but ahead of discretionary spending like travel, entertainment, etc.
If you use up all of your assets in your estate for your long term care, I assume Medicaid (if available and not defunct) will be the next way to finance the care.
that LTC almost never actually is activated. We went through this with my Mother who made it to the age of 91. You have to be in bad shape, very bad shape for 90 days straight usually for it to start-up. People almost always will recover enough during that time that the 90 day clock gets re-set, OR they DIE.
It's sort of like accidental death insurance. Ask somebody who knows and will be honest with you like a friend in the business. Those types of policies usually only pay out for an extreme accident like a plane crash.
that LTC almost never actually is activated. We went through this with my Mother who made it to the age of 91. You have to be in bad shape, very bad shape for 90 days straight usually for it to start-up. People almost always will recover enough during that time that the 90 day clock gets re-set, OR they DIE.
It's sort of like accidental death insurance. Ask somebody who knows and will be honest with you like a friend in the business. Those types of policies usually only pay out for an extreme accident like a plane crash.
Yes, this is another concern I have about LTC insurance. They are not just going to send money when you request it. You are subject to restrictions, and they are going to find any way possible to not pay or pay less than requested, given that people are living longer.
You have a 5% chance of ending up in one. Most of these are probably people who don't take care of themselves, smoke, drink heavy. No exercise. Yes there are the unlucky ones.
I think many of us who take care of ourselves (I ran a half marathon this a.m., btw) will mostly have to worry about dementia and not being able to care for ourselves (if we don't taken out by cancer, heart disease first) later in life. Gotta prepare for that possibility. As I posted once or twice, the premiums aren't anything really. If they were, I'd consider not carrying it.
Just like the optimal retirement income is based on multiple income sources (social security, multiple types of investment accounts, perhaps a pension) ... and LTC draws from more than one stream (LTCi, personal savings, perhaps familial support or Medicaid) ... the same is true for the decision process (self-education, professional input, community resources/guidance).
Being single and female, I tend to have a lot of single, female friends - many of whom also had a child or two. Between professional responsibilities ... familial obligations ... and even (let's be honest) the generational gap where women of my age did not have the financial exposure that hopefully the current generation does ...
you end up with many women who through no "fault" of their own are hesitant to plunge into the financial pool.
In several ... and this has nothing to do with intelligence, or underlying capability (one who comes to mind is an attorney at a top-ranked law firm) ... I see this tendency to personalize the relationship with the financial advisor ... the statements that they've become friends, he (and often the advisor is a male) is really going to look out for me.
I just don't hear that from men.
We - my spouse and I - have had probably 3-4 financial advisors over the last 20 years.
In no way shape or form are they my friends nor do I assume they will look out for us.
That's my/our responsibility. We've left advisors because they were intent on selling "their" product. NOPE.
I daresay I would have that same attitude if I were single.
I have an employer that has pushed employees to plan for their retirement. Not to the point of pushing us to a specific advisor - but as elements of our benefits package were whittled away - like when they stopped contributing to the 401K - they were loud and clear that it was our individual responsibility.
I think many of us who take care of ourselves (I ran a half marathon this a.m., btw) will mostly have to worry about dementia and not being able to care for ourselves (if we don't taken out by cancer, heart disease first) later in life. Gotta prepare for that possibility. As I posted once or twice, the premiums aren't anything really. If they were, I'd consider not carrying it.
stroke and being paralyzed is far to common for my taste as well as dementia are our biggest threats in my family . we went through it with my dad already .
You have a 5% chance of ending up in one. Most of these are probably people who don't take care of themselves, smoke, drink heavy. No exercise. Yes there are the unlucky ones.
Your children deserve the life THEY make for themselves. Stop the helicopter parenting. $100,000 given to kids who never had money will be gone in 6 months for crap. They don't have money cause they don't know how to handle it.
Really you want to suck of the crappy medicaid the government provides.
People are suppose to give up on saving for retirement cause you have a 5% chance of ending in a nurisng home. That is 5 out of 100. Do the math.
Don't want to go to one and give the kids an inheritance. Oregon has dr assisted suicide.
I'd like to know whether that 5% is the extended stay we think, or also includes people who stay for a short period, then get discharged to go home.
foundapeanut - I beg your pardon..... if you visit most nursing homes/skilled nursing facilities it is predominantly women - like my mother and aunt who recently passed away - who were the picture of health most of their 90+ years - took care of themselves and never had any major illnesses until dementia/Alzheimers set it. Then they could not take care of themselves. Normal aging. Not something from drinking or smoking or lack of exercise.
Where do you get the idea that only unhealthy people land in nursing homes?
Do you know anything about end of life care?
And most people discharged from nursing homes are discharged to the morgue.
I was aware of the "need" comment possibly being cited. But it's just a post, not an opus. Doctors advise us, they don't have enforcement powers. If they did, no one would smoke, overeat, etc.
As I said, we took a risk. We won. We can pay for both of us for more years than I'd ever care to spend in one. We were there back when we made the decision.
I know, "we" was me. She'd have bought a policy. But we both enjoyed the cruises and other trips we took on premiums we never paid.
The decision should be made based on one's financial situation.
But I appreciate your post.
Interesting.
You didn't use the word "need" in your post. I used the word in mine. To explain that there's criteria.
I still don't understand what you're talking about. Enforcement? Enforcement of what?
And you don't understand what I'm saying, it seems.
Doctors cannot just arbitrarily get you into Assisted Living or SNF especially on LTCI insurance. Same with hospice. There's criteria.
As I said (maybe you missed it) you MUST QUALIFY with the inability to perform Activities of Daily Living, called ADLs.
And the potential resident has to go through qualifying with the facility AND the INSURANCE company approval process before the insurance company even considers paying. And the wording is VERY specific.
Such as whether the resident has to be "assisted" versus just observed.
I was not debating your choice; have at it.
I was clearing up your misunderstandings.
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.
The reality is
