I Have a Guy who wants LTC

[pdoyle]

Re: I Have a Guy

Thanks for the imput, people...
confrence call next week. we'll hammer out the details. I'm sure I'll have more questions.

 

[hardwork]

Re: I Have a Guy

Am I missing something ??

My two questions would be :

1) Why would you not present a LTC policy w/life time benefits?
$300 a/Day With Inflation Protection. The other bells and
whistles,present them let him choose!@

2) Have you discussed income protection as well? ($400,000)
How does the wife make that up, If he is disabled?

 

[Graham]

If he has the money and want's total flexibility (without going the UL/LTC combo route) take a look at MedAmerica. It is more expensive because it's a pure cash product but will give him flexibility that no traditional LTC policy will.

 

[pdoyle]

If he has the money and want's total flexibility (without going the UL/LTC combo route) take a look at MedAmerica. It is more expensive because it's a pure cash product but will give him flexibility that no traditional LTC policy will.

We have looked at the MedAmerica and the Met cash product... it's like 9 to 10k premium... Why would I want to pay 300k in premium over the nest 30 years for something that I may or may not use when I can but a UL with LTC rider for about the same amount and a benefit will be paid at some point... be it the LTC benefit or death benefit.

 

[yankee466]

We have looked at the MedAmerica and the Met cash product... it's like 9 to 10k premium... Why would I want to pay 300k in premium over the nest 30 years for something that I may or may not use when I can but a UL with LTC rider for about the same amount and a benefit will be paid at some point... be it the LTC benefit or death benefit.

Well...maybe from your original post, they may or may not need more life insurance (other than estate planning options). Why don';t you just pick a good LTC plan (5% compound inflation) with "RoP less claims". You can do a 10 pay, pay to 65, or something like that if he can take the take breaks (can't do it with a life plan). Your premiums will be maybe $3-5K per year, you will have more LTC benefits at age 80 than the linked benefit plan will likely ever have.... and if they never use it, they get all the money back. Almost sounds like a no brainer to me. Not sure who all sells good LTC in California, but I am sure someone has something workable. Nothing wrong with a typical reimbursement plan if they need extensive help.....much cheaper than the cash plans. Linked Benefit plans are all reimbursement plans anyway. I ran my numbers with Transamerica....since they showed up on Straticision in CA. If they need more life insurance, sell them a straight life plan from who ever you choose.

Just a thought.....hence the debate goes on.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Well...maybe from your original post, they may or may not need more life insurance (other than estate planning options). Why don';t you just pick a good LTC plan (5% compound inflation) with "RoP less claims". You can do a 10 pay, pay to 65, or something like that if he can take the take breaks (can't do it with a life plan). Your premiums will be maybe $3-5K per year, you will have more LTC benefits at age 80 than the linked benefit plan will likely ever have.... and if they never use it, they get all the money back. Almost sounds like a no brainer to me. Not sure who all sells good LTC in California, but I am sure someone has something workable. Nothing wrong with a typical reimbursement plan if they need extensive help.....much cheaper than the cash plans. Linked Benefit plans are all reimbursement plans anyway. I ran my numbers with Transamerica....since they showed up on Straticision in CA. If they need more life insurance, sell them a straight life plan from who ever you choose.

Just a thought.....hence the debate goes on.

The Full Return of Premium rider (regardless of claims) is even better and makes more sense.

Let's face it, the guy's got an estate tax problem already. He can have a trust own the LTCi policy and have the trust receive the benefits and the refund of premium as well. It's a no-brainer for reducing one's taxable estate.

 

[yankee466]

The Full Return of Premium rider (regardless of claims) is even better and makes more sense.

Let's face it, the guy's got an estate tax problem already. He can have a trust own the LTCi policy and have the trust receive the benefits and the refund of premium as well. It's a no-brainer for reducing one's taxable estate.

although I have seen it in articles, I think LTC carriers have a hard time with an owner of a LTC policy not being the insured and paying benefits to anyone but the insured. Maybe the beneficiary would work in a RoP plan. Its not like an ILIT and a life plan. Else, it may be possible, but when I spoke to Genworth once, they said it could not be done. maybe others would permit, but not sure how. Have you ever seen a box on a LTC ap where it asks for the owner? Not a professional in this area....so open to discussion.

Plus...I only suggested "RoP less claims"...as it makes it more cost effective than regardless of claims, and very few people would complain if the LTC plan actually kicked in and gave them their monies worth. Depends on the carrier and what the cost difference is.

 

[Mr_Ed]

although I have seen it in articles, I think LTC carriers have a hard time with an owner of a LTC policy not being the insured and paying benefits to anyone but the insured. Maybe the beneficiary would work in a RoP plan. Its not like an ILIT and a life plan. Else, it may be possible, but when I spoke to Genworth once, they said it could not be done. maybe others would permit, but not sure how. Have you ever seen a box on a LTC ap where it asks for the owner? Not a professional in this area....so open to discussion.

Plus...I only suggested "RoP less claims"...as it makes it more cost effective than regardless of claims, and very few people would complain if the LTC plan actually kicked in and gave them their monies worth. Depends on the carrier and what the cost difference is.

I'm just not a big fan of the ROP minus claims. It means that the insurer is using your money first to pay the claim.

There are some LTCi apps that have a line for "owner", as opposed to "applicant".

 

[yankee466]

Out of curiosity, I do not recall seeing "owner" on Genworth, Hancock, Metlife, Mutual/United of Omaha, or Prudential.....doesn't mean its not there, but I do not recall seeing it on those.

Who might do this? Maybe MassMutual or NWM or NYL...since they cater to the pricier policies?

 

[Mr_Ed]

Out of curiosity, I do not recall seeing "owner" on Genworth, Hancock, Metlife, Mutual/United of Omaha, or Prudential.....doesn't mean its not there, but I do not recall seeing it on those.

Who might do this? Maybe MassMutual or NWM or NYL...since they cater to the pricier policies?

With some companies it is an addendum to the regular application.