Is this the Perfect Hybrid Policy?

[ltcadviser]

You mean state life ?

Or did you mean Mass ?



I agree.

However if they say don't apply if declined before, I don't apply.

Now, if they grant exceptions, maybe different.

I have personally asked them this, and they told me no exceptions.

Maybe they don't like me.

I meant Mass Mutual. Just as an example because it also has rules. But it grants exceptions.

Bottom line is do not worry about perceived rules.
There are always exceptions.

Consider an applicant that is diabetic and overweight and applies to Genworth. Well, so what. It was a mistake by the client to even apply. Call an underwriter-explain that your applicant is insurable per its UW guidelines-and get OK to submit.

Don't overthink this stuff too much.

 

[Mr_Ed]

This is interesting.

I did not know there was a standard underwriting. I was thinking express was all that was available.

I need to call them again and get the distinction between the two.

Thanks!

Express underwriting is essentially just a telephone interview.

Standard underwriting is blood, urine, medical records, etc...

 

[ltcadviser]

Express underwriting is essentially just a telephone interview.

Standard underwriting is blood, urine, medical records, etc...

Just got a 76 year old couple approved this evening through express underwriting for a $200000 single pay. UW does not get much easier.

 

[CALTCAgent]

Just got a 76 year old couple approved this evening through express underwriting for a $200000 single pay. UW does not get much easier.

Any health issues ?

Preferred Non smoker ?

 

[ltcadviser]

Any health issues ?

Preferred Non smoker ?

Yes, Preferred non smoker. No major issues; usual stuff, blood pressure, cholesterol controlled by meds.

It is nice to avoid medical records, though, especially for older applicants. When applicants are 76 years old it gives the doctor more decades to hang the applicant.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Any health issues ?

Preferred Non smoker ?

look at it from the insurer's perspective.
there's very little risk.

if they need care the first $200K used will be the insured's money.
if they don't need care, the death benefit is less than $200K.

therefore, there's not much need for underwriting.

why would a consumer want to do this?

they are hedging their bets. they know if they need care, they'll have to use their own money first. at least with this policy, after their $200K is spent on their care, the insurer's money will start to be used for their care.

A lifetime pay policy makes more sense from the insured's perspective, but then they would have had to gone through more stringest underwriting.

it's really a win win win.

no one loses.

it is, as the thread is entitled: "perfect!".

 

[ltcadviser]

look at it from the insurer's perspective.
there's very little risk.

if they need care the first $200K used will be the insured's money.
if they don't need care, the death benefit is less than $200,000.

Death benefit is more than $200000. It is $300000. So insurance company has some risk and needs to underwrite 76 year olds properly.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Death benefit is more than $200000. It is $300000. So insurance company has some risk and needs to underwrite 76 year olds properly.

no COB rider?



----------

no COB rider?

What's the point of doing the assetcare1 if there's no COB rider.

There's no point at all.

 

[ltcadviser]

Unlimited COB rider. DB was $240,000. Got this couple confused with 2 others I did for $300,000. Always do the Unlimited rider.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Unlimited COB rider. DB was $240,000. Got this couple confused with 2 others I did for $300,000. Always do the Unlimited rider.

got it.
glad to hear you always do the unltd cob rider.
i agree wholeheartedly.
for most of our clients, that is the #1 reason for buying this policy.

nearly everyone i've sold has had the unltd cob rider.