Why I'm considering long term care insurance

praxis · Post by **praxis** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:22 pm

The multiple threads on this subject are helpful. I believe my wife and I are in the category where "self-insuring" (apologies to those who don't like the term) is an option. But I have been considering LTCi to be for "end-of-life care". The most attractive benefit for me is the help the healthy spouse would get from a policy if one of us becomes seriously disabled for a long time before our "final chapter". Say, a seriously disabling accident or stroke.

I discussed ideas with an agent from Physician's Mutual. I am almost 63, DW is almost 58. We are in good health, so the premium for a policy covering a portion of the cost of a potential LTC need for us ($3000/mo) is $212/mo. When I did a quick calculation, disregarding inflation and compounding adjustments, I assumed one of us would need to use the policy in 30 years (probably an exaggeration). So at $212/mo, the premiums will cost us $2544/yr or $76,320 for 30 years, or $52,539. if we pay in one payment. That policy would provide a maximum monthly payment to us of $3000 for a maximum of 8 years. This type of policy includes an inflation adjustment rider and pays at 100% of the total of the qualified expense receipts sent to the company for payment. The patient must qualify with a "medical necessity" which can be a diagnosis of either "cognitive impairment" or "a need for help with at least 2 of the defined 6 Activities of Daily Living". This company includes as qualified expenses: in-home patient care, food purchase/preparation, transportation costs, adult day-care costs for visits to centers for social interaction for patient, in-home laundry or house cleaning or beautician costs.

In any case, the policy pays for a maximum term of 8 years X $36K or $288K. So if we pay premiums for a very long time (30 yrs-I'll be 93) we've invested $76,320. to receive up to $288K in benefits. Or, if we elect to pay in one large, one-time payment it will cost $52,539.

In a situation where one of us becomes seriously disabled at a younger age, we still receive benefits up to $288K, but it seems more likely that we would need care for a longer period than in a typical end-of-life scenario.

In previous analyses, I've been considering average costs of, and average stays in, nursing homes to estimate our risk. If it's true that 1 in 2 people need LTC and the average stay is 2 years and the cost of a good place is $5000. then we can afford to "self-insure". That would be a cost of $120K for that average stay of 2 years. But when I think of a case where one of us must receive care at a younger age, it becomes more plausible that our care costs could threaten our savings in a serious way.

The agent quoted a recommendation that a couple needs $2.5 million in assets to "self-insure" for LTC. I think that's an exaggeration. But because all my insurances are bought for protection from catastrophic need, I am considering purchasing LTCi not for the most likely way our lives will play out but for the case that will most risk our savings.

An interesting comment from the agent:

The industry claims that the chances of having to collect the benefit from your policies are:
for house insurance: 1 in 1200
for car insurance: 1 in 240
for health insurance: 1 in 10
for long term care insurance: 1 in 2

Taylor Larimore · Post by **Taylor Larimore** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:35 pm

Hi Praxis:

I believe my wife and I are in the category where "self-insuring" (apologies to those who don't like the term) is an option.

I believe it is nearly always a mistake to buy unneeded insurance. Use the premiums saved to add to your portfolio.

Best wishes.
Taylor

nisiprius · Post by **nisiprius** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:59 pm

How does the inflation adjustment worked? The one on mine is 5% compounded annually, which on the one hand over the past ten years has been not quite as fast as actual quoted costs, but on the other hand is quite a bit more than CPI inflation.

I think a single payment is a good idea. We weren't offered that option but we did go for a ten-annual-payment plan and I'm very glad we did.

Do they offer a "shared-care" rider? In our case, for what really was a relatively small amount extra on the premium, this rider allowed the two policies to be treated as a single pool; in your case that would mean a total of 16 years for you and your spouse, if one of you didn't need it the other could use up to 16 years.

I've never heard of Physician's Mutual which means absolutely nothing. Before I look up their ratings, I'll note that one book has a throwaway reference to "an insurer should be at least within the top four grades of at least two rating services, unless there is an adequate explanation of why it is not," and another one says something similar and also wants "a B or better from Weiss."

Physician's Mutual says they have an A from A.M. Best, which is its third highest rating, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret that because Best only has four "A" ratings while the other three have 7. They say they have an A+ from Weiss. I have to regard it as a red flag that they do not mention their Fitch, Moody, or S&P ratings, that's very strange, I think you need to check that out.

BruDude · Post by **BruDude** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:13 pm

PM isn't exactly known as a strong player in the LTCi market.

praxis · Post by **praxis** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:40 pm

I just logged in to the Weiss site and this is the Weiss ratings chart for the "strongest" LTC insurers as of 4/12/12.

COUNTRY LIFE INS CO IL A+
PHYSICIANS MUTUAL INS CO NE A+
BERKSHIRE LIFE INS CO OF AMERICA MA A
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INS CO MA A
NEW YORK LIFE INS CO NY A-
AETNA LIFE INS CO CT B+
AMERICAN FIDELITY ASR CO OK B+
MUTUAL OF OMAHA INS CO NE B+
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO IL B+

I will track down the other ratings and report if I discover something curious. I was using their numbers as an example for discussing my personal discovery, that end-of-life LTC isn't my most compelling reason to consider insurance. I have not compared companies yet for strength or pricing. Thanks for the heads up.

praxis · Post by **praxis** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:55 pm

I am not suggesting Physician's as an option. Only using their example to discuss my point. But after checking A.M. Best and Weiss, it doesn't look like they should be discounted for financial reasons at least.

Here is info from Best site for Physician's:

Best's Credit Ratings
Financial Strength Ratings
Rating: A (Excellent)
Financial Size Category: XI ($750 Million to $1 Billion)
Outlook: Stable
Action: Affirmed
Effective Date: September 12, 2011

Issuer Credit Ratings
Long-Term: a+
Outlook: Stable
Action: Affirmed
Date: September 12, 2011

dhodson · Post by **dhodson** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:59 pm

You really don't post any questions and if you have read the other threads then you should understand the issues. I wouldn't purchase it personally.

GregLee · Post by **GregLee** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:34 pm

Think of it from the insurer's point of view. It sounds like they're offering you a policy where they pay off $288k to 1/2 their beneficiaries, thus with expected payout of $144k per beneficiary, and they're only charging $57k. Hmmm. If you were them, would you make this deal?

ourbrooks · Post by **ourbrooks** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:24 pm

From Medicare.gov

By 2020, 12 million older Americans will need long-term care. Most will be cared for at home; family and friends are the sole caregivers for 70 percent of the elderly. A study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that people who reach age 65 will likely have a 40 percent chance of entering a nursing home. About 10 percent of the people who enter a nursing home will stay there five years or more.

If 1 in 2 require long term care and 70% of that is from family members, then, overall, only 15% of the over 65 population actually ends up paying substantially for long term care! Only 40% enter a nursing home; when they do, the average stay is 2 years and only 1 in 10 stays for five years. Viewed this way, the $57,000 starts looking like more than adquate compensation for the insurance company.

Clearly, what would be ideal here would be a high deductable long term care policy, one that didn't start paying until you'd been in a nursing home for two years. Those don't appear to be available, (which arouses my suspicions).

yobria · Post by **yobria** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:46 pm

praxis wrote:The industry claims that the chances of having to collect the benefit from your policies are:
for house insurance: 1 in 1200
for car insurance: 1 in 240
for health insurance: 1 in 10
for long term care insurance: 1 in 2

Your chance of needing it for more than five years is more like 1 in 20, as I've shown on recent threads. And of course if you do need it for a long period of time, you've already paid for it, in the form of Medicaid.

flowerbuyer · Post by **flowerbuyer** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:50 pm

In 1989, at the age of 63, my mom purchased an LTCI policy from what is now Genworth. The policy was written to pay $XXX per day, after a 20 day waiting period, and included a 4%/year inflation adjustment. Fast forward to 2010, when her policy began paying for her LTC in a private care home for dementia. Her premiums totaled $15,000, and the policy will pay out $210,000 over four years. It was the right decision for her.

Medicaid providers in our area do not offer the superb level of care she receives.

I wish there were policies available today for reasonable premiums!

yobria · Post by **yobria** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:04 pm

flowerbuyer wrote:In 1989, at the age of 63, my mom purchased an LTCI policy from what is now Genworth. The policy was written to pay $XXX per day, after a 20 day waiting period, and included a 4%/year inflation adjustment. Fast forward to 2010, when her policy began paying for her LTC in a private care home for dementia. Her premiums totaled $15,000, and the policy will pay out $210,000 over four years. It was the right decision for her.

Medicaid providers in our area do not offer the superb level of care she receives.

I wish there were policies available today for reasonable premiums!

Yes, it's a good value in cases like that - you bought when it was cheap (no surprise premium increases presumably), Genworth didn't go bankrupt the year before it began paying benefits (it almost did - its stock price dropped 95% btw 2007 and 2009), you ended up needing the care for a long period of time.

Johm221122 · Post by **Johm221122** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:07 pm

It sounds like good deal,if they don't increase premiums

yobria · Post by **yobria** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:21 pm

ourbrooks wrote:From Medicare.gov

By 2020, 12 million older Americans will need long-term care. Most will be cared for at home; family and friends are the sole caregivers for 70 percent of the elderly. A study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that people who reach age 65 will likely have a 40 percent chance of entering a nursing home. About 10 percent of the people who enter a nursing home will stay there five years or more.
If 1 in 2 require long term care and 70% of that is from family members, then, overall, only 15% of the over 65 population actually ends up paying substantially for long term care! Only 40% enter a nursing home; when they do, the average stay is 2 years and only 1 in 10 stays for five years. Viewed this way, the $57,000 starts looking like more than adquate compensation for the insurance company.

It's also important to note how deceptive those average numbers can be. The median tells a much different story, as I show here: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... st=1358888

nisiprius · Post by **nisiprius** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:10 pm

Of course it's not "a good deal." And that 1 in 2 statistic is deceptive, because--I don't know whether to say "alas" or "blessed release"--most nursing home stays are not protracted. To put it bluntly, most--not all, but most--nursing home residents are in their last months of life. If you buy LTCi with a 60-day exclusion period, your chances on collecting something aren't bad, but your chances of collecting very much aren't good.

http://www.medicare.gov/longtermcare/static/home.asp which I assume is a disinterested party says

A study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that people who reach age 65 will likely have a 40 percent chance of entering a nursing home. About 10 percent of the people who enter a nursing home will stay there five years or more.

So, there you go. a 40 percent chance of collecting something, but it's irrelevant because if you can afford LTCi premiums you can afford to pay for four or five months of nursing home care.

It's all about the "10 percent who will stay there five years or more." It's insurance, darn it, it's not an investment.

One would like to know the percentage of LTCi premiums that get paid out in claims. My Medigap policy stays that for that particular policy it's 87%. Nice to know, some quirk of state regulation must require it, too bad every policy isn't required to say that. Very likely other kinds of insurance are in that ballpark, too. You know the insurance company gets the better end of the deal, that's a given. But you're willing to pay them to reshape the distribution of outcomes.

Why is it that it's sophisticated to "hedge" but unsophisticated to buy "insurance?"

So, the upper tail of the LTCi cost distribution is represented by the "10 percent will say there five years or more," say the equivalent of $400-500 thousand in 2012 dollars. I personally have been acquainted with people who had 8-year stays, so 8-10 years is not Guinness-world-record stuff.

You buy LTCi for two reasons: a) you literally cannot afford the costs of a catastrophe like a 10-year stay, or b) you are willing to pay because an unexpected $500,000-or-more cost would not mean financial ruin, but would be disruptive and inconvenient, particularly for the spouse.

yobria · Post by **yobria** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:29 pm

nisiprius wrote:One would like to know the percentage of LTCi premiums that get paid out in claims. My Medigap policy stays that for that particular policy it's 87%. Nice to know, some quirk of state regulation must require it, too bad every policy isn't required to say that.

That's interesting, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what it means exactly. Does that mean in a given year 87% of what they took in in premiums was paid out in claims? That doesn't tell us much about payout ratios for a given claim, since premiums and claims happen in different years. Does that mean the average person who paid in $1 in premiums got back $.87 in claims? Does that include investment returns?

nisiprius wrote:Why is it that it's sophisticated to "hedge" but unsophisticated to buy "insurance?"

Nothing, I have no problem with others buying LTCI if they understand the risks, though I personally don't like it. What I do have a problem with is how it's deceptively marketed to (amd misunderstood by) consumers.

nisiprius wrote:So, the upper tail of the LTCi cost distribution is represented by the "10 percent will say there five years or more," say the equivalent of $400-500 thousand in 2012 dollars. I personally have been acquainted with people who had 8-year stays, so 8-10 years is not Guinness-world-record stuff.

I'm hopeful that, as opposed to being incapacitated in a nursing home for many years, managed death options will be available when the time comes.

ddunca1944 · Post by **ddunca1944** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:54 pm

I read all the threads that come up on this topic. The more I read, the more I become convinced that LTCi is not for everyone and there is no "one size fits all" solution.

My husband and I purchased a policy from John Hancock in 2008. My major reason is that I have a strong family history of Alzheimer's disease. So my chances of requiring NH care are higher than average. We are comfortable enough, but not rich enough to pay for 10 years (or more) of institutionalization and I am unwilling to see my spouse impoverished in order to qualify for Medicaid. (My mother is entering her 5th year of institutionalization and at the age of 87, she is physically fine. She could live another 5 or even 10 years. But her mind has been gone for a while now).

What is very interesting to me (and I am pursuing right now) is the Partnership programs that some states have. Basically, if you have a Partnership policy (that meets certain parameters), you can exclude from consideration (for Medicaid purposes) the amount equal to the policy. So if/when the policy runs out and you have to apply for Medicaid, they will exclude assets in an amount equal to the amount of the policy. These programs have been in place for a while in some states, but WA state only began the program in Jan of this year. So I am looking into it.

Bongleur · Post by **Bongleur** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:33 pm

What's a "DW?"

Not until age 93 !!! ??? You seem to be wanting coverage for moribund-stage Nursing Home care only. But IMO an LTC policy is to pay for Assisted Living once you become unable to live alone, which can be for many years. Are you sure some other type of Insurance Policy might not be a better deal for what you want?

ourbrooks · Post by **ourbrooks** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:00 pm

Insurance is something you buy because you don't expect something to happen. No one expects their house to burn down or their car to crash.

What I'd dearly like to be able to do is insure against that unlikely but still possible occurence that one or both of us live in a nursing home for more than five years. Perhaps, it would be something like a long term care policy with a $500,000 deductable. The only policies that seem to be available are those that pay the FIRST $300,000 or whatever. Does anyone know of something like a catastrophic long term policy?

If such policies aren't available, it makes me very suspicious that long term care policies are really structured more as investment vehicles than as insurance policies, another variant on the variable annuity or universal life theme.

ABQ4804 · Post by **ABQ4804** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:38 am

Bongleur, I wondered about "DW" and "DH" also, and asked awhile back. Apparently it's a Boglehead forum term referring to a dear wife, devoted wife, or xxxx wife - haven't seen it defined exactly. Hope this is helpful.

Bongleur · Post by **Bongleur** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:16 am

All I could imagine was Divorced Wife, in context where W means wife.

ddunca1944 · Post by **ddunca1944** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:19 am

I've seen these abreviations in other forums besides the Bogleheads:
DW - Dear Wife
DH - Dear husband
DS - Dear son
DD - Dear daughter
MIL - mother in law
FIL - father in law
SIL - Sister in law
BIL - Brother in law
DB - Dear brother
DS - Dear sister
DGD - Dear granddaughter
DGS - Dear grandson
XH - exhusband
XW - exwife
STBX - soon to be ex (in process of divorce)

carol12 · Post by **carol12** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:09 pm

flowerbuyer wrote:In 1989, at the age of 63, my mom purchased an LTCI policy from what is now Genworth. The policy was written to pay $XXX per day, after a 20 day waiting period, and included a 4%/year inflation adjustment. Fast forward to 2010, when her policy began paying for her LTC in a private care home for dementia. Her premiums totaled $15,000, and the policy will pay out $210,000 over four years. It was the right decision for her.

Medicaid providers in our area do not offer the superb level of care she receives.

I wish there were policies available today for reasonable premiums!

At age 66,I just bought LTCI thru Northwestern Mutual....$7500 limit per month for nursing home, in home, & alternate living facility care, 12 week elimination,6 year benefit, 5% inflation auto additional purchase benefit......$5152.50 per year. Should I shop some more??

dhodson · Post by **dhodson** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:14 pm

i believe NWM is one of the more expensive choices for LTCi. They are probably less likely to raise rates (sort of bc thats already built in) and probably more financially strong than other companies.

carol12 · Post by **carol12** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:19 pm

dhodson wrote:i believe NWM is one of the more expensive choices for LTCi. They are probably less likely to raise rates (sort of bc thats already built in) and probably more financially strong than other companies.

bc?
so they would be a good choice even if they are a bit more expensive?

dhodson · Post by **dhodson** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:30 pm

nobody knows the answer to that question. You need to come to your own conclusions. Im actually in the camp that will not pruchase LTCi based on the reason in this and the multiple other LTCi threads.

People who believe in LTCi but would buy from someone cheaper such as genworth would say that you have over paid for the benefit and that you are hoping they give you money back in dividends down the line. People in NWM camp would say NWM is a much stronger company thant Genworth is likely to just increase rates on you in the future any way. You never will know which one will be cheaper in the long run ahead of time given how insurance companies are allowed to raise rates. NWM hasnt done it yet with LTCi but they also started off at higher prices.

carol12 · Post by **carol12** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:45 pm

dhodson wrote:nobody knows the answer to that question. You need to come to your own conclusions. Im actually in the camp that will not pruchase LTCi based on the reason in this and the multiple other LTCi threads.

So, what happens when you don't have LCTi and care eats up all your assets and the burden falls on your family??

dhodson · Post by **dhodson** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:59 pm

cash pays for long term care costs. You can get cash from a variety of situations with one being your LTCi policy.

Given the current pricing for LTCi and risks within the industry, i will retain the risk and plan accordingly.

Keep in mind most policies have limits so if you are requiring LTC for a long period of time then you still will fall victim to the situation you described. Fortunately that is actually the minority of LTC.

Once you dont have any assets then one typical uses medicaid. I plan to have sufficient resources to pay the equivalent costs of a policy like yours on hand if necessary. The idea that everyone should purchase a LTCi policy is incorrect. You might wish to read the threads in more detail. Some will chose a LTCi policy and some will not.

yobria · Post by **yobria** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:00 pm

carol12 wrote:
dhodson wrote:nobody knows the answer to that question. You need to come to your own conclusions. Im actually in the camp that will not pruchase LTCi based on the reason in this and the multiple other LTCi threads.
So, what happens when you don't have LCTi and care eats up all your assets and the burden falls on your family??

Chance I'll need LTC for longer than I can self insure for is about 1%. In that case, Medicaid (the LTCI I already paid for).

HomerJ · Post by **HomerJ** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:01 pm

carol12 wrote:
dhodson wrote:nobody knows the answer to that question. You need to come to your own conclusions. Im actually in the camp that will not pruchase LTCi based on the reason in this and the multiple other LTCi threads.
So, what happens when you don't have LCTi and care eats up all your assets and the burden falls on your family??

You go on Medicaid and possibly move to a crappy nursing home.

Or, a bullet is pretty cheap.

Seriously though, some states are allowing assisted suicide now. Curious to see where we will be in 30-50 years.

getRichSlower · Post by **getRichSlower** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:03 pm

yobria wrote: Chance I'll need LTC for longer than I can self insure for is about 1%. In that case, Medicaid (the LTCI I already paid for).

1% sound low, but even so, isn't that an argument for ltci? Isn't the purpose of insurance generally to cover low probability events?

HomerJ · Post by **HomerJ** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:07 pm

getRichSlower wrote:
yobria wrote: Chance I'll need LTC for longer than I can self insure for is about 1%. In that case, Medicaid (the LTCI I already paid for).
1% sound low, but even so, isn't that an argument for ltci? Isn't the purpose of insurance generally to cover low probability events?

Yeah, but you have to consider costs... I too wish there was a ltci plan with a $500,000 deductible.

dhodson · Post by **dhodson** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:19 pm

And the 1% he is talking about isn't covered by most ltci plans. Many of us would consider a plan that starts coverage after either a large deductible or few years of requiring ltc.

BruceM · Post by **BruceM** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:51 pm

ourbrooks wrote: Insurance is something you buy because you don't expect something to happen. No one expects their house to burn down or their car to crash.

What I'd dearly like to be able to do is insure against that unlikely but still possible occurence that one or both of us live in a nursing home for more than five years. Perhaps, it would be something like a long term care policy with a $500,000 deductable. The only policies that seem to be available are those that pay the FIRST $300,000 or whatever. Does anyone know of something like a catastrophic long term policy?

Yes, entering a continuing care retirement community (CCRC).

ourbrooks wrote:If such policies aren't available, it makes me very suspicious that long term care policies are really structured more as investment vehicles than as insurance policies, another variant on the variable annuity or universal life theme.

I'm not quite so optimistic. The evidence that is now unfolding suggest QLTCI policies have been structured as short term profit centers for insurers.

So, the upper tail of the LTCi cost distribution is represented by the "10 percent will say there five years or more," say the equivalent of $400-500 thousand in 2012 dollars. I personally have been acquainted with people who had 8-year stays, so 8-10 years is not Guinness-world-record stuff.

The ongoing presumption with all of these projections is that the insurer will willfully open up their checkbook when the insurered's adult children file the claim that their parents cannot perform at least 2 of the defined ADLs. This is a huge leap in faith that an industry that is notorious for rejecting claims of insureds with even the smallest hint of an exclusion (requiring the insurered to come back with a complaint through the state regulator that the exclusion does not apply to their claim) will somehow become generous patrons of their elder policy holding claimants in 20 to 30 years. With the funding problems the insurers are clearly having and the opague nature of this form of disability, it just seems to make this form of insurance as about as risky as any form of insurance can be.

BruceM

Bongleur · Post by **Bongleur** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:31 pm

>The ongoing presumption with all of these projections is that the insurer will willfully open up their checkbook when the insurered's adult children file the claim that their parents cannot perform at least 2 of the defined ADLs.
>

No, the assertion is made by your parent's physician. They will also probably send a nurse who is trained in elder care to do their own observation. Not a problem.

White Coat Investor · Post by **White Coat Investor** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:43 pm

praxis wrote: An interesting comment from the agent:

The industry claims that the chances of having to collect the benefit from your policies are:
for house insurance: 1 in 1200
for car insurance: 1 in 240
for health insurance: 1 in 10
for long term care insurance: 1 in 2

I must be pretty unlucky. I've used the first three, but haven't had a need for the fourth.

dhodson · Post by **dhodson** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:30 pm

Bongleur wrote:>The ongoing presumption with all of these projections is that the insurer will willfully open up their checkbook when the insurered's adult children file the claim that their parents cannot perform at least 2 of the defined ADLs.
>

No, the assertion is made by your parent's physician. They will also probably send a nurse who is trained in elder care to do their own observation. Not a problem.

The same is true for group and individual disability insurance but problems still exist.

Jerilynn · Post by **Jerilynn** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:31 pm

rrosenkoetter wrote:
Seriously though, some states are allowing assisted suicide now. Curious to see where we will be in 30-50 years.

My bet is that there will be a pill to cure/prevent/reverse AD and other forms of dementia.

ddunca1944 · Post by **ddunca1944** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:57 pm

Jerilynn wrote:
rrosenkoetter wrote:
Seriously though, some states are allowing assisted suicide now. Curious to see where we will be in 30-50 years.
My bet is that there will be a pill to cure/prevent/reverse AD and other forms of dementia.

I fervently hope that you are right, but I don't consider hope as a plan

Dandy · Post by **Dandy** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:25 pm

I keep reading about rate hikes and companies that stop selling policies. Doesn't give me comfort. I can imagine it is hard to predict medical expenses/care and they may be expensive to service. I don't think I want to own a policy from a company that isn't selling new coverages. I can imagine over time the service would become pretty bad since it wouldn't be a profit growth center.

The fact that most coverages are only for a few years vs life makes self insurance more of a possibility -though not a pleasant one.