Long Term Care Insurance Recommendations?

[k0ua]

I'm not asking for me. But if you're going to come onto a public forum and advocate this sort of coverage, you should be able to provide at least a reasonable approximation of the coverage a person would get for various premiums. You said around $1 per day earlier. I asked how much coverage someone would get for that and you didn't answer.

At what age would you recommend someone get cancer insurance? As I asked above, what would the approximate monthly premium be for an otherwise healthy couple in their early 50's for a policy that pays out a $50k lump sum upon a diagnosis of any type of cancer. Let's say they live in Branson, MO, if that helps.

You're being evasive every time someone asks for data. If the numbers supported your assertions, I suspect that you'd have provided them much earlier...

For approximately $64 monthly bob and sally age 50 in Missouri could get a lump sum payout of $10,000.00 plus payouts for each procedure they have done. The average payout on procedures is about $15,000 per incident. So the premiums are about a dollar a day. Of course younger people will pay much less in monthly premium, and older people will pay more. This is only one insurer, there are many to pick from, and many will pay a much higher lump sum and no payments for procedures. Again, this has no bearing on what you would pay, as the rates are state specific, and age specific and insurer specific.

I am not being evasive, I am being ethical. Why are you being so adamant about "winning" the argument. I have nothing to gain by "winning". I am certainly not going to sell anything to anyone on this forum. I am providing advice I believe to be true and helpful. Just like you think you are.

Also you make a bid deal about people planning for their future. Well I am here to tell you as an insurance professional that the majority of people do not plan for their future. Case in point. How many members use tobacco? Do you have any idea what the use of tobacco has on the rate of premium of insurance?. Especially as they get older. Tell me how any person that uses tobacco is planning for their future?. Yet 100's of millions of people use tobacco.

Tell me why I get calls every day from people seeking dental insurance who have just been to the dentist and received an estimate of hundreds or thousands of dollars for dental work they need. Imagine their disappointment when they discover I can offer them coverage with a 1 year waiting period for major procedures.

You speak of setting aside money for emergency funds, like people actually do that. I have news for you. Most people don't. While I applaud you for your saving discipline and trying to logic out your risk in a cost/benefit analysis, I don't think it applies to the majority of people in the US, it may apply more to the members of the forum because as a general rule they are more conservative, but I don't think it applies to the majority.

THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION OF INSURANCE.

 

[Travelover]

............You speak of setting aside money for emergency funds, like people actually do that. I have news for you. Most people don't. While I applaud you for your saving discipline and trying to logic out your risk in a cost/benefit analysis, I don't think it applies to the majority of people in the US, it may apply more to the members of the forum because as a general rule they are more conservative, but I don't think it applies to the majority................

I agree that the majority of people do not have an adequate emergency fund. But I also believe that encouraging people to buy crappy insurance like cancer insurance is not the right way to steer people in the right direction. And not incidentally, I won't make a dime off advising them to save.

 

[k0ua]

I agree that the majority of people do not have an adequate emergency fund. But I also believe that encouraging people to buy crappy insurance like cancer insurance is not the right way to steer people in the right direction. And not incidentally, I won't make a dime off advising them to save.

And your advising them to save will fall on the same deaf ears as my advice to buy cancer insurance. I have advised many 65 year old smokers to buy cancer insurance, before they are diagnosed with cancer and can still qualify. and in many cases, believe this or not, they feel that if they buy the insurance that they are likely to contract cancer. I have had many people actually say this to me. But I will also relate as a true fact that many of my wife's clients have thanked her for selling them a cancer policy. And I mean take the time to call her when they had nothing else to say or need.

Look, you and I are not that far apart. I am not discounting your advice to save and look out for your future, all I am saying is most people don't, or can't and I offer a solution that is truly likely to pay off for them in a format that they can budget for. You say to to save, yes a great idea you need to start when you are young, but when you are a smoker at 65 with a family history of cancer, yet somehow you haven't come down with it yet, you might be advised to listen to me and take out a policy. Again, most people don't listen to either one of us.

 

[Travelover]

........ I offer a solution that is truly likely to pay off for them in a format that they can budget for. .........

And I say that a person purchasing this "cancer insurance" is NOT likely to come out ahead by buying it. Why? Because insurance companies are not dumb. They understand adverse selection, meaning smokers and those with family history of cancer are more likely to purchase the insurance. So the premium is priced based on that adverse selection, actual payout experience, plus actuarial projections. If half the customers get cancer and collected the amounts that you indicated, it would bankrupt the company. I'd love to see what the profit margin is on this insurance.

 

[k0ua]

And I say that a person purchasing this "cancer insurance" is NOT likely to come out ahead by buying it. Why? Because insurance companies are not dumb. They understand adverse selection, meaning smokers and those with family history of cancer are more likely to purchase the insurance. So the premium is priced based on that adverse selection, actual payout experience, plus actuarial projections. If half the customers get cancer and collected the amounts that you indicated, it would bankrupt the company. I'd love to see what the profit margin is on this insurance.

Actually in this case the one I mentioned does not screen for the adverse selection of tobacco use..

 

[Travelover]

Actually in this case the one I mentioned does not screen for the adverse selection of tobacco use..

The insurance companies are not dumb. They have accounted for this in the likelihood of applicant's smoking in their pricing.

 

[Parkanzky]

For approximately $64 monthly bob and sally age 50 in Missouri could get a lump sum payout of $10,000.00 plus payouts for each procedure they have done. The average payout on procedures is about $15,000 per incident. So the premiums are about a dollar a day. Of course younger people will pay much less in monthly premium, and older people will pay more. This is only one insurer, there are many to pick from, and many will pay a much higher lump sum and no payments for procedures. Again, this has no bearing on what you would pay, as the rates are state specific, and age specific and insurer specific.

I am not being evasive, I am being ethical. Why are you being so adamant about "winning" the argument. I have nothing to gain by "winning". I am certainly not going to sell anything to anyone on this forum. I am providing advice I believe to be true and helpful. Just like you think you are.

Also you make a bid deal about people planning for their future. Well I am here to tell you as an insurance professional that the majority of people do not plan for their future. Case in point. How many members use tobacco? Do you have any idea what the use of tobacco has on the rate of premium of insurance?. Especially as they get older. Tell me how any person that uses tobacco is planning for their future?. Yet 100's of millions of people use tobacco.

Tell me why I get calls every day from people seeking dental insurance who have just been to the dentist and received an estimate of hundreds or thousands of dollars for dental work they need. Imagine their disappointment when they discover I can offer them coverage with a 1 year waiting period for major procedures.

You speak of setting aside money for emergency funds, like people actually do that. I have news for you. Most people don't. While I applaud you for your saving discipline and trying to logic out your risk in a cost/benefit analysis, I don't think it applies to the majority of people in the US, it may apply more to the members of the forum because as a general rule they are more conservative, but I don't think it applies to the majority.

THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION OF INSURANCE.

$64/month with an average payout of $25k ($10k up-front and $15k in procedures) is a bad return on your investment, even if you know that you'll need it someday. Since the probability that you'll need it is less than unity, then it's a terrible investment. That's what makes cancer insurance a bad deal.

You keep telling me that Bob and Sally can't afford to save, but you want them to pay $64/mo in insurance premiums. What I'm saying is that anybody that understands compound interest knows that they'd be way ahead if they just put that $64/mo into a savings account.

Buy the insurance and don't get cancer (or get one of the most likely cancers that won't cost much to treat) and you've got little or nothing to show for your premiums. If you just save that money, you will have the money if you get cancer and need it, but you'll also have that money if you don't end up with cancer. One is clearly better.

I don't think it's ethical to advise people ignorant of basic personal finance principles to make what is almost universally a poor financial decision. I have an elderly mother and I'm often explaining to her that she doesn't want whatever predatory crap someone is trying to sell her at the moment.

 

[k0ua]

$64/month with an average payout of $25k ($10k up-front and $15k in procedures) is a bad return on your investment, even if you know that you'll need it someday. Since the probability that you'll need it is less than unity, then it's a terrible investment. That's what makes cancer insurance a bad deal.

You keep telling me that Bob and Sally can't afford to save, but you want them to pay $64/mo in insurance premiums. What I'm saying is that anybody that understands compound interest knows that they'd be way ahead if they just put that $64/mo into a savings account.

Buy the insurance and don't get cancer (or get one of the most likely cancers that won't cost much to treat) and you've got little or nothing to show for your premiums. If you just save that money, you will have the money if you get cancer and need it, but you'll also have that money if you don't end up with cancer. One is clearly better.

I don't think it's ethical to advise people ignorant of basic personal finance principles to make what is almost universally a poor financial decision. I have an elderly mother and I'm often explaining to her that she doesn't want whatever predatory crap someone is trying to sell her at the moment.

Ok.. One more and I am done. $ 64 a month at less than 1/2 of 1 percent of that wonderful compound interest that a savings account is paying now a days for one year is $768 dollars in savings and $3.84 in interest for the first year. Bob came down with cancer approximately 1 year after starting his savings account. Bob has $771.84 now in his account to pay for his expenses. Bob and his lovely wife are now wondering how they are going to pay the bills. I will give you this, you are sure one sharp financial analyst. Look, I am done. I don't care how you respond to this. You think you have to spread the gospel of saving and specified disease policy's are a rip off.
Good for you. All I know is that if Bob had bought a policy like I outlined, Bob would now have a wad of money to help with his bills. If you don't think that is valid, so be it. If Bob saved for 10 years he still would not even have the upfront money offered by the policy. The only way Bob is going to come out is by investing in risky securitys. and you know it. And what if this was 2008? All of of Bobs money is gone that he saved so diligently for. But you know what?... That old rip off cancer policy is still in place..still covering Bobs posterior. You say old Bob, should have started saving a bunch earlier.. Yep that would help.. but keep in mind Young Bob would be paying less than a third of that $64 a month for his and Sally's coverage too. Is all insurance a risk as to whether you will use it or not? As to whether you will lose money in the deal? Darn right, except Whole Life, and that is guaranteed you will use it if you keep it in force. No one gets out alive. Of course you would argue that Whole life is a waste of money too, wouldn't you?

 

[Parkanzky]

Ok.. One more and I am done. $ 64 a month at less than 1/2 of 1 percent of that wonderful compound interest that a savings account is paying now a days for one year is $768 dollars in savings and $3.84 in interest for the first year. Bob came down with cancer approximately 1 year after starting his savings account. Bob has $771.84 now in his account to pay for his expenses. Bob and his lovely wife are now wondering how they are going to pay the bills. I will give you this, you are sure one sharp financial analyst.

You're assuming that Bob has never saved a dime in his life. At what age do you recommend that Bob and Sally start their policy? I don't recommend he wait until he's 50 to start saving.

Look, I am done. I don't care how you respond to this. You think you have to spread the gospel of saving and specified disease policy's are a rip off.

That's fine. You're not my audience. If I can help one person to make a better financial decision, this is worth it to me.

Good for you. All I know is that if Bob had bought a policy like I outlined, Bob would now have a wad of money to help with his bills. If you don't think that is valid, so be it. If Bob saved for 10 years he still would not even have the upfront money offered by the policy. The only way Bob is going to come out is by investing in risky securitys. and you know it.

He certainly should be in securities. But only after he has established a liquid emergency fund. If Bob started saving just a couple percent of his income when he started working, he'd have built his emergency fund years ago and now he'd be filling investment accounts.

And what if this was 2008? All of of Bobs money is gone that he saved so diligently for.

Not gone at all. If he's got the emergency fund any responsible person should have, he will spend out of that and not his brokerage account. Even if his only savings was in the stock market (clearly not wise), if he's been investing over the long term he's still just fine. The market didn't drop to zero in 2008... Put a hypothetical $10k in the stock market 20 years ago and see what it would be worth now. Heck, look at what it would have been worth in 2008. You'd still be ahead.

That old rip off cancer policy is still in place..still covering Bobs posterior. You say old Bob, should have started saving a bunch earlier.. Yep that would help.. but keep in mind Young Bob would be paying less than a third of that $64 a month for his and Sally's coverage too. Is all insurance a risk as to whether you will use it or not? As to whether you will lose money in the deal? Darn right, except Whole Life, and that is guaranteed you will use it if you keep it in force. No one gets out alive. Of course you would argue that Whole life is a waste of money too, wouldn't you?
for 10 years is

Life insurance can be a good deal or a bad deal, just like any other insurance. The numbers you've given me for cancer insurance put it in the "bad deal" column. I put to you that if you polled financial professionals about it that they'd agree nearly unanimously. Keep in mind, I have nothing to gain personally by dissuading people from buying this insurance.

 

[Complete Turf Care]

I have read all of the posts in this thread and I am now leaning towards buying a cancer policy.

My reasons are this;

1. 50% of men get cancer. That gives me a good chance of getting it.
2. I am 54 years old, and am due for my second colonoscopy this year. Had the first one done at 50 and they removed 'something' and said I should have another at 55 and not wait until I'm 60. I'd say that puts me at a higher risk of getting cancer.