Life Ins W LTC
- Thread starter pfg1
- Start date
- 10,806
You obviously did not read my replies to it. Or were they illogical?
- 10,806
Again. Insurers have a very long history of deciding permanent vs. non.
Also, you are making assumptions about why I am asking this question that are not true.
Thanks for ignoring my question and wasting my time Ed.
Arthur Rudnick
Guru
- 1,652
Regarding Restoration of Benefits:
I've always felt this was a bogus option that sounds nice on the surface, but in reality it is rarely utilized.
If someone goes on claim, history shows that 99% stay on claim. I've had over 100 policyholders go on claim over the years and I can only recall 2 or 3 who recovered and no longer required care.
I was under the impression that the LTC rider of a hybrid policy was TQ. That being the case wouldn't only a 90 day certification of needing care suffice to generate benefits?
I've always felt this was a bogus option that sounds nice on the surface, but in reality it is rarely utilized.
If someone goes on claim, history shows that 99% stay on claim. I've had over 100 policyholders go on claim over the years and I can only recall 2 or 3 who recovered and no longer required care.
I was under the impression that the LTC rider of a hybrid policy was TQ. That being the case wouldn't only a 90 day certification of needing care suffice to generate benefits?
- 10,806
I was not talking about hybrid policies. I was talking about traditional policies with LTC "Chronic Care" Riders.
Basically I was curious as to how effective some of them actually would be in most claims situations.
Take, NA/Midland. They throw in the Chronic Care Rider for free automatically, but it requires permanent impairment. You are able to access up to 24% of the DB per year for 2 of 6 ADLs if permanent.
I have sold this product plenty, but not for the Rider, just because its one of the top 2 or 3 IULs on the market right now.
But it would be nice to know exactly how effective the Rider would be in most LTC claims situations.
Also, some annuity income riders will double the income for 2 of 6 permanently. I do not sell these with LTC protection in mind. But again, it would be nice to know exactly how effective they would be in most situations.
Thank you Arthur for your post. It was very informative and exactly the type of info I was looking for. Basically between you and Jack's post it confirms that the majority of LTC claims are for permanent impairments.
Insurers do NOT have a very long hstory of deciding if a claim is permanent or not permanent.
The Restoration of Benefits rider is only triggered AFTER they are no longer ADL dependent.
Your argument is flawed.
And that's why I say you're deceiving yourself.
You want so bad for a chronic care rider that requires permanent disability to b equal to a traditional TQ LTCi benefit trigger, that you'd deluding yourself into thinking your argument makes sense.
it doesn't.
- 10,806
You obviously know nothing about the DI industry. They have been doing it for 40 years now.
----------
Again, you are missing my point. I never said I wanted it to be equal. I wanted to know the actual effectiveness of it.
Like I said, you are making ASSumptions that are not true.
Like usual, you just want to fight and belittle others instead of having a constructive discussion. You are making assumptions that are untrue, in an attempt to make others look inferior. Im not really sure why you post on this forum other than to attempt to make others look bad via faulty assumptions about their thinking.
As Ive said multiple times, I am trying to judge their effectiveness. Not trying to make them a replacement for traditional ltci. If you dont believe me then fine. But please stop harping on this ASSumption, as I have stated it is not true multiple times. The only thing you are doing is making yourself look like even more of a jerk than usual. So in otherwords, please stop harassing me.
So again, thank you for wasting my time Ed. But if it makes you feel taller then you win....
Last edited:
- 2,584
Throwing my 2 cents in here. I have no preference as usually each situation dictates for me the direction I take.
I have never liked the permanent stipulation. I felt many consumers won't like seeing that, and it gives me more to explain. I guess I am just used to traditional LTC and that explanation.
I think it is a worthy discussion topic and feel this clarifies my thinking on the subject. Thanks for the discussion.
I have never liked the permanent stipulation. I felt many consumers won't like seeing that, and it gives me more to explain. I guess I am just used to traditional LTC and that explanation.
I think it is a worthy discussion topic and feel this clarifies my thinking on the subject. Thanks for the discussion.
- 10,806
I never implied it should be either or. Or that chronic care riders are a substitute for traditional ltci.
I was simply trying to gauge the effectiveness of the riders that do have that stipulation.
Based on Jack's post, they would pay benefits for around 95% of LTC claims. To stay on the conservative side I would guess the number is closer to 90%.
These products are seldom sold for the LTC benefits. Usually they are sold for the core benefit. But it still would be helpful to know exactly how effective they are.... which is why I asked the question... despite what some others might think my true intent was.
Last edited:
