- 10,806
What do you guys think about the option of Partnership VS non Partnership policy..which one you would pick.
Partnership. No reason not to... it seems like the stats you quoted would qualify as a partnership policy either way...
GenWorth VS John Hancock
- Thread starter Sales71
- Start date
Partnership. No reason not to... it seems like the stats you quoted would qualify as a partnership policy either way...
What do you guys think about the option of Partnership VS non Partnership policy..which one you would pick.
Simply rephrase your question. Should a policyholder in their 40's include compound inflation protection within its issued benefits?
Yes or No?
If your answer is "yes", you have a Partnership-qualified policy.
Not exactly, Jack.
In most states neither Hancock's nor Medamerica's policies are Partnership qualified even with an appropriate inflation benefit.
Some companies will choose to NOT file their policy as a Partnership Qualified Policy.
mrsed
- 2,584
What do you guys think about the option of Partnership VS non Partnership policy..which one you would pick.
If the plan would be exactly the same if it was a Partnership plan, then you are only adding to the plan.
Last edited:
If the couple in question can afford the annual premiums mentioned within this thread, Partnership should not be an issue to them at all. It is very very unlikely that it will come into play for them. If it's a state in which a particular carrier does not have a Partnership plan on file or if the state requirement is 5% compounding, I don't think it's necessary to change the policy the couple ultimately is recommended merely to meet Partnership standards. If the parameters of the plan they wish to purchase happens to meet Partnership standards then it is merely an add on that might be a selling point but likely an empty one when thought through.
Bittersweet614
New Member
I always make the Partnership vs Non Partnership part of the discussion.
It only makes sense to go with a Partnership plan for someone with assets to protect. Especially because that is, usually, one of the primary reasons they are buying it in the first place.
Since they are in their 40's I cant think of any reason not to add the 5% Compound.
It only makes sense to go with a Partnership plan for someone with assets to protect. Especially because that is, usually, one of the primary reasons they are buying it in the first place.
Since they are in their 40's I cant think of any reason not to add the 5% Compound.
With this particular couple possessing enough income/assets to pay for the level of premium quoted, explain the circumstances of the couple ever using the Partnership aspect of the policy and how likely would it be for those circumstances to arise.
Bittersweet614
New Member
Being a Partnership Plan doesn't add any specific benefit to the plan. What it does is that it gives the policy holder an "Asset Disregard" if they would ever get into a Medicaid Spendown situation.
Example, if the Pool of Money in the policy is $300,000 and the policy pays out its benefits but they still need care, they would have to self fund their LTC. Under the normal rules, in Ohio, they would only be able to keep about $2500. However, with a Partnership Plan that has been used they have $300,000 that is exempt from the spend down. So this way they would be able to keep the $300,000 plus the normal $2500.
5% Compound may be a dinosaur but, in Ohio, they must have a compound interest rider to be a partnership plan.
Besides, since the cost of LTC doubles approximately every 15 years it makes sense for them to get the 5% Compound since that rider doubles the coverage about every 15 years.
Most likely it will be 30-40 years until they need to use it. They might as well have a policy that has kept up with inflation.
Similar threads
