New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Unfortunately, the root issue, as unsolvable and inevitable as it is, is the aging process itself. I'm not defending nursing homes by any means, but it is difficult to imagine a setting where suffering from incontinence of bowel and bladder, dementia, and general debilitation can look acceptable to anyone looking in from the outside. Surely the cruise comment was tongue-in-cheek because a cruise ship is certainly no place for someone in such condition, nor is a luxury hotel. A foreign country? Maybe, if you could set up a situation that protects you from a long list of vulnerabilities. It's a tough, widespread problem, and not one that is purely medical either. For many people, end stage of life is such a terrifying thought they avoid confronting it at all, let alone planning for it.
I'm not sure exactly what the government can do about it. Legislate away aging?
The only recommendation I can make is to (counter-intuitively) confront the issue, get informed and educated, and plan for how you want the end stage of your life to look under a short list of various scenarios. My personal opinion is that there can exist a balancing act between medical care and quality of life, where more of one can result in less of the other, which again is a counter-intuitive thought.
To elaborate on this point - by definition, the highest octane, turbo charged level of healthcare is an Intensive Care Unit. Anyone who has spent much time in one would probably agree that it would difficult to find a lower quality of life, particularly for the end of life patient.
Sorry I think I'm digressing too much here, but the thread is a good one, and this subject is worthy of thoughtful, informed planning.
Don't get me started about financial incentives/dis-incentives and conflicts-of-interest in healthcare......
I'm not sure exactly what the government can do about it. Legislate away aging?
The only recommendation I can make is to (counter-intuitively) confront the issue, get informed and educated, and plan for how you want the end stage of your life to look under a short list of various scenarios. My personal opinion is that there can exist a balancing act between medical care and quality of life, where more of one can result in less of the other, which again is a counter-intuitive thought.
To elaborate on this point - by definition, the highest octane, turbo charged level of healthcare is an Intensive Care Unit. Anyone who has spent much time in one would probably agree that it would difficult to find a lower quality of life, particularly for the end of life patient.
Sorry I think I'm digressing too much here, but the thread is a good one, and this subject is worthy of thoughtful, informed planning.
Don't get me started about financial incentives/dis-incentives and conflicts-of-interest in healthcare......
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
I think there's a lot going for choosing when you want to die and mentally checking out, which makes it happen naturally very quickly once you're at the point where your body is already starting to shut down. The elderly folks I've known who have had the worst end-of-life experiences were the ones who clung to life with everything they had.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Not at all. No one had specified any particular specific "condition." For many elderly people, a cruise ship would be a perfectly wonderful place to be, and that includes many who are currently living in nursing homes. For others, in extreme states of disrepair, it would be unworkable.glennds wrote: Surely the cruise comment was tongue-in-cheek because a cruise ship is certainly no place for someone in such condition,
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
I can see your point in the case of a healthy elderly person who would otherwise be living independently. The cruise ship would be an alternative to independent living. Anyone in a nursing home is there because there is a reason they can no longer safely live independently. It might be a medical condition, confusion, fall risk, general frailty. If one or more of these reasons were not present, then they wouldn't be in a nursing home which is why moving to a cruise ship makes no sense to me thus I thought it was a joke.LC475 wrote:Not at all. No one had specified any particular specific "condition." For many elderly people, a cruise ship would be a perfectly wonderful place to be, and that includes many who are currently living in nursing homes. For others, in extreme states of disrepair, it would be unworkable.glennds wrote: Surely the cruise comment was tongue-in-cheek because a cruise ship is certainly no place for someone in such condition,
For a healthy, functional elderly person, a permanent cruise ship might be a blast, but that person would not be in a nursing home. Maybe you meant the cruise as an alternative to a retirement home (very different from a nursing home)?
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
There's a spectrum. There's a spectrum from "health" to "falling apart", and on to "vegetable" (and on to "dead") and there's a spectrum of all kinds of over-the-hill living arrangements. Not everyone in a "nursing home" is as decrepit as everyone else. Some people in nursing homes could survive just fine on a cruise ship, and have at least as high a standard of life (some plusses, some minuses) but for far, far less expense.glennds wrote: Maybe you meant the cruise as an alternative to a retirement home (very different from a nursing home)?
Those who couldn't on their own could with a companion. They could recruit an assistant, possibly from the third world, to accompany them at little cost.
Maybe some entrepreneur will create a cruise ship experience specifically catering to those needing long-term care.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
That would be a very good approach, considering that labor costs are the main reason that nursing home costs are so high, and cruise ships generally recruit from much lower-cost countries. I'm surprised no one has done this yet, actually.LC475 wrote:There's a spectrum. There's a spectrum from "health" to "falling apart", and on to "vegetable" (and on to "dead") and there's a spectrum of all kinds of over-the-hill living arrangements. Not everyone in a "nursing home" is as decrepit as everyone else. Some people in nursing homes could survive just fine on a cruise ship, and have at least as high a standard of life (some plusses, some minuses) but for far, far less expense.glennds wrote: Maybe you meant the cruise as an alternative to a retirement home (very different from a nursing home)?
Those who couldn't on their own could with a companion. They could recruit an assistant, possibly from the third world, to accompany them at little cost.
Maybe some entrepreneur will create a cruise ship experience specifically catering to those needing long-term care.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: searching for the lost Xanadu
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
I brought up the possibility of an HSA to my accountant and a friend and they both advised me to stick with taxable. Maybe that's because I'm high-savings low-income. I'm still tempted though.WildAboutHarry wrote: Start early with an HSA. Invest wisely.
.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
I don't think you can open an HSA without wage income or self-employed income just as with IRAs.dualstow wrote:I brought up the possibility of an HSA to my accountant and a friend and they both advised me to stick with taxable. Maybe that's because I'm high-savings low-income. I'm still tempted though.WildAboutHarry wrote: Start early with an HSA. Invest wisely.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: searching for the lost Xanadu
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
This is true, but it's not a problem.
Anyway...
Anyway...
.
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Hi all - glad to finally have a moment to check back with the forum. It's been an insane couple of weeks.
I thought I'd weigh in on the long term care issue since I've been rather steeped in it lately. My parents elected not to get LTC insurance because they read the fine print, and there was a cap on benefits - be sure to check that carefully before signing up! I think it was only good for a year. If you stop to think about it, premiums would have to be insanely high to cover long term care indefinitely (plus the insurance company's overhead and profits) given the number of people who eventually need it.
My mother had pieced together several income sources to cover my father's care, and if it proved necessary all of us kids would certainly have pitched in - and in fact a family member loaned my mother a large slug of cash. One thing that really helped in the last several months was hospice. It covers less than it used to but it was most definitely welcome, especially in the last few days when they kept us supplied with medications, oxygen, and nurse visits. And, I'm really glad we kept my father at home. The care he got with us was certainly better than it would have been even in a hospital, much less a nursing home.
LTC is all the more reason to save up a good sized nest egg and retirement income streams. Perhaps this cost should be factored into "magic numbers" for retirement. My mother estimated that my father's care cost about $6500 per month for about two years. Yes there are people in nursing home care for 10 years, but generally those people are less disabled than my father was, and don't need as much care as he did. Managing at home with a part time aide is far less expensive than a nursing home, and if there is a healthy spouse (which is the nightmare scenario of a nest egg on which the spouse is dependent for income being whittled down to pay for care) that can work. If not, then fine, let the nest egg get used up.
I'll just mention also that having a family member pass away at home is a very powerful experience. It just wouldn't have been the same at a nursing home.
I thought I'd weigh in on the long term care issue since I've been rather steeped in it lately. My parents elected not to get LTC insurance because they read the fine print, and there was a cap on benefits - be sure to check that carefully before signing up! I think it was only good for a year. If you stop to think about it, premiums would have to be insanely high to cover long term care indefinitely (plus the insurance company's overhead and profits) given the number of people who eventually need it.
My mother had pieced together several income sources to cover my father's care, and if it proved necessary all of us kids would certainly have pitched in - and in fact a family member loaned my mother a large slug of cash. One thing that really helped in the last several months was hospice. It covers less than it used to but it was most definitely welcome, especially in the last few days when they kept us supplied with medications, oxygen, and nurse visits. And, I'm really glad we kept my father at home. The care he got with us was certainly better than it would have been even in a hospital, much less a nursing home.
LTC is all the more reason to save up a good sized nest egg and retirement income streams. Perhaps this cost should be factored into "magic numbers" for retirement. My mother estimated that my father's care cost about $6500 per month for about two years. Yes there are people in nursing home care for 10 years, but generally those people are less disabled than my father was, and don't need as much care as he did. Managing at home with a part time aide is far less expensive than a nursing home, and if there is a healthy spouse (which is the nightmare scenario of a nest egg on which the spouse is dependent for income being whittled down to pay for care) that can work. If not, then fine, let the nest egg get used up.
I'll just mention also that having a family member pass away at home is a very powerful experience. It just wouldn't have been the same at a nursing home.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Welcome back, sophie. You were missed!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Amen!
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
From another forum, I thought this was funny:
My mother had one of those “Long term care” policies…What a joke!
The policy was through Met-Life. She had been paying $285.00 per month for 26 years that’s $88920.00; I paid over 7K for her care and Met-life paid back only $236.00. They said that the rest went towards processing – 6800 bucks for processing?
Be careful if you have Met-Life they are crooks. 3 times they (lost) my papers/recites and then they sent me a bill for over 700 bucks…for her rear payments…she was dead!
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
I've got the house paid off. If the wife dies before me, I'll be importing 5 to 6 Filipina nursing school graduates for the in-home care: One to actually take care of me and the other five just to have fun messing with their head.
"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is. "
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Here's a link to an excellent two part series on this very topic by Darrow Kirkpatrick. For those unfamiliar with his writing, he's one of the clearest and most insightful writers on early retirement and investing I've come across in the past few years:
http://www.caniretireyet.com/long-term- ... buying-it/
http://www.caniretireyet.com/long-term- ... buying-it/
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Great link! LTCI looks like a joke. Spend around $1000 a month and only get twice that back at best when you need it. In 35-40 years from now, I seriously doubt retirement homes will even exist anymore. Or even LTCI. It seems like a very risky bet.Kevin K. wrote: http://www.caniretireyet.com/long-term- ... buying-it/
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
most states now sponser plans that are partnerships.
you buy your plan from an approved insurer and the state agrees that in exchange for buying this plan they agree to certain things.
in our case ,ny, they agree:
not to touch assets at all if you buy 3 years of coverage for in home,nursing home or assisted living .
no 5 year look back
no cap on the income the stay at home spouse gets
when the insurance runs out you go on a special version of medicaid and they pick up the bill.
but since they can only control the agreement in state you only get those perks in state.
if you move out of state you will only get the 3 years insurance coverage but no agreement.
the perks after the 3 years of insurance is why we really wanted the policy.
you buy your plan from an approved insurer and the state agrees that in exchange for buying this plan they agree to certain things.
in our case ,ny, they agree:
not to touch assets at all if you buy 3 years of coverage for in home,nursing home or assisted living .
no 5 year look back
no cap on the income the stay at home spouse gets
when the insurance runs out you go on a special version of medicaid and they pick up the bill.
but since they can only control the agreement in state you only get those perks in state.
if you move out of state you will only get the 3 years insurance coverage but no agreement.
the perks after the 3 years of insurance is why we really wanted the policy.
Last edited by mathjak107 on Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
we just made a long term care policy part of our plan last year.
the insurers are backed by most states as well as if they have financial issues must be absorbed by other companies so default is not a concern.
todays policies are very clear and concise as to what they pay. but the real value is not in the 3 years insurance we took, that is bubkas in comparision to the life long deal once the insurance runs out.
in new york if you take a 3 year partnership plan you get to chose any home or better yet elect to have in home care and not be sent off to a medicaid home 100 miles away.
you get to stay there on medicaid when the insurance runs out.
there is no look back , no shifting of assets needed and MOST IMPORTANT no limitation on the stay at home spouses income.
that is something everyone forgets. it is all well and good that you shifted assets and had to lose control of them and principal but there are income restrictions that are quite low on the stay at home spouse.
great you preserved all the assets, now try living off the income while your spouse is on medicaid.
we figured out for less than 1% of the average return on our assets we can protect all the assets and not have to worry.
we also realized that if we tried to self insure in reality a large chunk of money had to be kept safe ,liquid and secure and not at risk since an extended downturn could wipe out a major portion of that money.
just losing the ability to invest that chunk would negate the fact we could have invested it ,paid a premium and had more left over .
most folks who claim they will self insure do not , they just leave everything invested and hope they do not need it or get caught.
one other factor too is the stay at home spouse makes alot of decisions as well as being concerned for their own survival.
many expenses ,and things for the spouse that needs care gets pushed aside for fear of over spending from their own funds they will need.
all in all when we looked into the insurance there were so many advantages that we had to be foolish not to protect ourselves.
the real deal is all about the stay at home spouse, not the spouse that needs the care..
the insurers are backed by most states as well as if they have financial issues must be absorbed by other companies so default is not a concern.
todays policies are very clear and concise as to what they pay. but the real value is not in the 3 years insurance we took, that is bubkas in comparision to the life long deal once the insurance runs out.
in new york if you take a 3 year partnership plan you get to chose any home or better yet elect to have in home care and not be sent off to a medicaid home 100 miles away.
you get to stay there on medicaid when the insurance runs out.
there is no look back , no shifting of assets needed and MOST IMPORTANT no limitation on the stay at home spouses income.
that is something everyone forgets. it is all well and good that you shifted assets and had to lose control of them and principal but there are income restrictions that are quite low on the stay at home spouse.
great you preserved all the assets, now try living off the income while your spouse is on medicaid.
we figured out for less than 1% of the average return on our assets we can protect all the assets and not have to worry.
we also realized that if we tried to self insure in reality a large chunk of money had to be kept safe ,liquid and secure and not at risk since an extended downturn could wipe out a major portion of that money.
just losing the ability to invest that chunk would negate the fact we could have invested it ,paid a premium and had more left over .
most folks who claim they will self insure do not , they just leave everything invested and hope they do not need it or get caught.
one other factor too is the stay at home spouse makes alot of decisions as well as being concerned for their own survival.
many expenses ,and things for the spouse that needs care gets pushed aside for fear of over spending from their own funds they will need.
all in all when we looked into the insurance there were so many advantages that we had to be foolish not to protect ourselves.
the real deal is all about the stay at home spouse, not the spouse that needs the care..
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
That's where the PP shines, IMHO. Compared to other investments, it's so non-volatile and has you holding so much cash that you really can self-insure. You're almost never going to be forced to sell a depreciated asset to pay for expenses.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
that would not really hold true depending on the sum needed. here in our area we are talking 120-140k a year. depending how long you need to insure for most of the assets may go a a bad time or before any growth gives them a cushion .
plus self insuring still does not help the situation as far as protection and retaining asset control once the money runs out. it also doesn't help the stay at home spouse receive a decent income from any assets that are shifted and preserved . once you are forced to medicare income from preserved assets is limited.
if you need to shift assets to protect them then the stay at home spouse loses not only control of the assets but is restricted by law to no more than 5% of the principal and all of the gains a year without showing cause for more money.
not a pleasant way to have to live,.
we found it much easier to eliminate all of that and just take a state partnership plan which at this point very few states do not offer.
years ago we were featured in a money magazine article where they wanted to match their team of pro's against us and our plans.
we did well but disagreed on one point.
we wanted to self insure ltc. they were against it. after doing much research on the subject and having my dad in a home for years they were right.
self insuring is not really a plan , it is more just cross your fingers and hope you do no have to start burning up assets.
most of our estate attorneys work is scrambling to try to help those with assets who thought they were going self insure but really only had their one lump sum savings and they never truly counted on having to use that.
many times now the stay at home spouse goes in to survival mode and cuts back on care that should be had in fear of blowing through their own money they need to live on...
plus self insuring still does not help the situation as far as protection and retaining asset control once the money runs out. it also doesn't help the stay at home spouse receive a decent income from any assets that are shifted and preserved . once you are forced to medicare income from preserved assets is limited.
if you need to shift assets to protect them then the stay at home spouse loses not only control of the assets but is restricted by law to no more than 5% of the principal and all of the gains a year without showing cause for more money.
not a pleasant way to have to live,.
we found it much easier to eliminate all of that and just take a state partnership plan which at this point very few states do not offer.
years ago we were featured in a money magazine article where they wanted to match their team of pro's against us and our plans.
we did well but disagreed on one point.
we wanted to self insure ltc. they were against it. after doing much research on the subject and having my dad in a home for years they were right.
self insuring is not really a plan , it is more just cross your fingers and hope you do no have to start burning up assets.
most of our estate attorneys work is scrambling to try to help those with assets who thought they were going self insure but really only had their one lump sum savings and they never truly counted on having to use that.
many times now the stay at home spouse goes in to survival mode and cuts back on care that should be had in fear of blowing through their own money they need to live on...
Last edited by mathjak107 on Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
as far as those linked benefit policy's ? we looked in to that but they have 2 major issues. there are no perks after the money runs out like you have with partnership plans and worse there is no inflation adjusting.
you also have to tie up a huge chunk of money to be able to really cover things .
in our case it was a far better deal taking a policy , investing that money and using a small piece of the average returns to pay for the policy.
those linked policy's are okay for those who can't get a regular policy.
they are soooooooo strict as far as being able to get a regular LTC plan.
they came to our house and did extensive blood work , aids and drug testing and memory testing .
we took 3 years insurance coverage at 350 a day with 5% inflation adjustment a year or 6 years in home or assisted living.
the perks were no look back period , no shifting of assets needed , no trusts cutting a spouse off from control , no income limitations on a stay at home spouse , we can use the insurance to get in to any private home we want and then after the insurance ends a special version of medicaid pays all the bills .
you can't self insure and get those important perks.
you also have to tie up a huge chunk of money to be able to really cover things .
in our case it was a far better deal taking a policy , investing that money and using a small piece of the average returns to pay for the policy.
those linked policy's are okay for those who can't get a regular policy.
they are soooooooo strict as far as being able to get a regular LTC plan.
they came to our house and did extensive blood work , aids and drug testing and memory testing .
we took 3 years insurance coverage at 350 a day with 5% inflation adjustment a year or 6 years in home or assisted living.
the perks were no look back period , no shifting of assets needed , no trusts cutting a spouse off from control , no income limitations on a stay at home spouse , we can use the insurance to get in to any private home we want and then after the insurance ends a special version of medicaid pays all the bills .
you can't self insure and get those important perks.
Last edited by mathjak107 on Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Where can I find more information about these plans?mathjak107 wrote: we found it much easier to eliminate all of that and just take a state partnership plan which at this point very few states do not offer.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
Just google your state and long term care partnership. Most have them now
Last edited by mathjak107 on Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
The state partnership plans are not cheaper than tthe regular plans , they just offer perks once the insurance is up.
I am 62 and my wife 64. I am in excellent health and prediabetic . We pay 6800 a year and new york state gives us 1600 back as a tax credit.
But with 3 million in assets to protect it takes about 1% of our gains on average to protect the whole thing.
If we took it younger it would have been cheaper. You do not save anything by waiting , you just risk not being accepted or charged more if you have anything crop up.
I am paying a few hundred more a year because now i was diagnosed as prediabetic.
I am 62 and my wife 64. I am in excellent health and prediabetic . We pay 6800 a year and new york state gives us 1600 back as a tax credit.
But with 3 million in assets to protect it takes about 1% of our gains on average to protect the whole thing.
If we took it younger it would have been cheaper. You do not save anything by waiting , you just risk not being accepted or charged more if you have anything crop up.
I am paying a few hundred more a year because now i was diagnosed as prediabetic.
Last edited by mathjak107 on Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: New Strategies for Covering Long-Term Care Costs
did your state offer them ?MachineGhost wrote:Where can I find more information about these plans?mathjak107 wrote: we found it much easier to eliminate all of that and just take a state partnership plan which at this point very few states do not offer.