Evolution of LTCI Plans

[CALTCAgent]

In the FE forum it is more of a street fight with multiple assailants, in here more like following Marquess of Queensberry rules.

 

[ltcadviser]

In the FE forum it is more of a street fight with multiple assailants, in here more like following Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Marquis Grissom? Dan Quisenberry? Huh? What? Is this going to turn into a baseball conversation. Now I'm in

 

[CALTCAgent]

Marquis Grissom?
Former Giant

Dan Quisenberry? Huh? What? Is this going to turn into a baseball conversation. Now I'm in

The old Royals submarine pitcher. Memories of Brett, Patek, White.

Looking like Royals vs. possibly Giants.

Back to the fight!

 

[Mr_Ed]

Scott,
Please answer me just 1 question:

Does the Rate Stability Regulations prohibit states from approving future rate increases on LTC policies?

A simple question that only requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

previously posted by emptyeternity



I guess you don't know our history. Scott & I have been fighting for 10 years. We have 2 different views of the world.

For now, I will ignore the sheer hypocrisy of this post.
And, the simple answer to your simple question is "yes".

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

originally posted by Arthur Rudnick

Scott,
Please answer me just 1 question:

Does the Rate Stability Regulations prohibit states from approving future rate increases on LTC policies?

A simple question that only requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Originally posted by Mr_Ed

The simple answer to your simple question is "yes".

REALLY?
Then how do you explain this earlier post that you made? I'm a little confused.

For those policies protected by the Rate Stability Regulation, in order for that rate increase to be approved on that policy, the actuary had to certify that it was the ONLY rate increase that would be needed on that policy for the l

A little contradiction there, huh?

 

[scagnt83]

And, the simple answer to your simple question is "yes".

Ok Scott that is not true. Arthur asked if it prohibits rate increases. It does not.

What it prohibits are multiple rate increases.

According to SCs version, any rate increase must be sufficient to be the only rate increase needed for the life of that policy. So basically it limits the policy to just one rate increase. But then if I remember right, it goes on to say that exceptions could be made if it can be actuarially proven that the previous rate increase was not sufficient and that a 2nd increase is needed to protect the claims paying ability on that block of business.

By all means correct me if Im wrong. But I dont think I am.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock, Tick Tock....................

Mr_Ed, still waiting for your response to post #35

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

previously posted by scagent

So basically it limits the policy to just one rate increase. But then if I remember right, it goes on to say that exceptions could be made if it can be actuarially proven that the previous rate increase was not sufficient and that a 2nd increase is needed to protect the claims paying ability on that block of business.

And, if it's actuarially proven that a 3rd, 4th, or 5th increase is needed, what happens then?

 

[scagnt83]

previously posted by scagent

And, if it's actuarially proven that a 3rd, 4th, or 5th increase is needed, what happens then?

Lol. I would have to reread the regs.

 

[Thomas NW]

previously posted by scagent



And, if it's actuarially proven that a 3rd, 4th, or 5th increase is needed, what happens then?

Too big to fail option?