Living Benefits verse No LB.

[scagnt83]

(Caveat, not an agent)

Is there fine print in the policies somewhere that expresses that action and explains the details?

How the Chronic Rider works will be fully explained in detail in the Policy Contract you receive when purchasing the policy.

You have 30-60 days in most states to review the contract once purchased, and decide if you want to keep it or not. You receive a full refund on premiums paid if you do not like the provisions of the contract and want to cancel. (called the free look period)

If you purchased one, just tell us which one and we can tell you how it works.

 

[scagnt83]

Thanks for posting that. I stopped panicking.

It is true for many. Especially when they are "free" riders on the policy and not an extra charge.

 

[LostDollar]

Sell some with and some without. The LB is never the determining factor for me. .

(Caveat, not an agent)

Somehow this seems backwards to me. I would hope it would be an important factor to you if it was an important factor to your client.

 

[Tahoe Ray]

Do any agents still offer policies without Living Benefits?

Of course. "all in one" products are mostly inferior to buying coverages separately. If the budget is really tight, then I guess they're better than nothing.

I wouldn't make a buying decision as a consumer strictly on LB though, especially if I can afford to cover those other areas more appropriately (LTC, IDI, critical, etc.).

It is true for many. Especially when they are "free" riders on the policy and not an extra charge.

That's the magic. "Free riders" generally suck. The ones that you pay for can be worth it.

Somehow this seems backwards to me. I would hope it would be an important factor to you if it was an important factor to your client.

It's just not to a lot of clients (for me and I'm sure others). They have other coverages for those issues in place already. If you can buy an LB product for the same price as other lower-cost carriers without it, then sure, go nuts. It can't hurt having the option.

I have a case now with a Trans LB term product. Sold for the chronic and with the "we'll convert it in a few years". Well, it's 10 years later, their conversion product is complete garbage and he's going to lose his LB at age 81, right around the time when he's likely to need it.

Hybrid and traditional LTC are both way out of his budget at this point. Sold correctly, it can work in some circumstances. But I run into a lot more of these scenarios than ones that actually cover the primary need.

 

[Cornelius]

So

Sell some with and some without. The LB is never the determining factor for me. In fact, there is a downside to the LBs that no one ever talks about. Yes, they can be great if a person ahs a desperate situation and the exercising the LB helps them survive financially. But give this some thought. You sold the life insurance to solve a problem for them. If they have a critical or chronic illness has that problem gone away? If the answer is no and they accelerate their benefit then when they pass away, the financial problem for the family still exists.

So a terminal illness benefit can help a person basically handle things a bit early with the thought process of death is in the near future but with other living benefits a person could survive and use up the initial desired use of the policy.

So the options sound like if LB is a consideration a high face as possible with LB or a life policy and a CI, or other type of supplemental policy?

Has anyone had first hand experience with a LB issue with a recovery and then dealing with the initial DB needs going forward?

 

[Tahoe Ray]

Has anyone had first hand experience with a LB issue with a recovery and then dealing with the initial DB needs going forward?

@pfg1 has.

 

[rousemark]

(Caveat, not an agent)

Somehow this seems backwards to me. I would hope it would be an important factor to you if it was an important factor to your client.

It is not an impotant dactor to me in the reccomendation i make. However. If it is important to the client then of course i would provide it for them.

 

[rousemark]

So


So a terminal illness benefit can help a person basically handle things a bit early with the thought process of death is in the near future but with other living benefits a person could survive and use up the initial desired use of the policy.

So the options sound like if LB is a consideration a high face as possible with LB or a life policy and a CI, or other type of supplemental policy?

Has anyone had first hand experience with a LB issue with a recovery and then dealing with the initial DB needs going forward?

If a person is using the acel benefit to take care of things the death benefit was intended forvthen that is ok. But even in that case they would just be receiving a portion of the DB. ((I am adressing primarily the policies with the free riders).

Take. This situation into considerstion. A person buys $500K to provide an income for the family upon their death. They have a critical illness and accelerate $400K. The company offers and they accept $250K inexchange for the $400K. They die 2 years later. The family still needs $500K to provide the income they need but there is only $100K avaiable. Now, they are in a bind. As far as selling addition coverage to cover the accerated DB. Most are going to be uninsurable if they were sick enough to accerated the benefit.

Don't get wrong. Having the Accerated DB is that a bad thing. If a person were in danger of losing
Their home because they could not work and the accerated benefit could prevent that, that would be a good thing. But, the client needs to be fully aware of how things work and most aren't.

I was with AGLA when they came out with their quality of life product. They were one of the first US companies to sell Accelerated DB plans on a large scale. Did not have any personal clients that used it but did see some in our office. The one that drove home how they really worked. A young man lost his eyesight and that was a covered condition. He elected to acceratet 50K and the offer from the company was less than $500. Of course he didn't accept but that taught all the meaning of claims being based on increased mortality.

 

[LostDollar]

If a person is using the acel benefit to take care of things the death benefit was intended forvthen that is ok. But even in that case they would just be receiving a portion of the DB. ((I am adressing primarily the policies with the free riders).

Take. This situation into considerstion. A person buys $500K to provide an income for the family upon their death. They have a critical illness and accelerate $400K. The company offers and they accept $250K inexchange for the $400K. They die 2 years later. The family still needs $500K to provide the income they need but there is only $100K avaiable. Now, they are in a bind. As far as selling addition coverage to cover the accerated DB. Most are going to be uninsurable if they were sick enough to accerated the benefit.

Don't get wrong. Having the Accerated DB is that a bad thing. If a person were in danger of losing
Their home because they could not work and the accerated benefit could prevent that, that would be a good thing. But, the client needs to be fully aware of how things work and most aren't.

I was with AGLA when they came out with their quality of life product. They were one of the first US companies to sell Accelerated DB plans on a large scale. Did not have any personal clients that used it but did see some in our office. The one that drove home how they really worked. A young man lost his eyesight and that was a covered condition. He elected to acceratet 50K and the offer from the company was less than $500. Of course he didn't accept but that taught all the meaning of claims being based on increased mortality.

Your last paragraph is very confusing to me.

In sales brochures I read for coverage of interest, the accelerated DB was described as up to x% of the policy DB, subject to an absolute dollar maximum and a minimum remaining death benefit requirement.

So, for example, say the sales literature says I could accelerate up to 60% of the DB as long as the maximum accelerated benefit does not exceed $100,000 and the remaining death benefit in policy is at least $15,000. If I had the budget for a $100,000 policy, I read the accelerated benefit details to say I could get $60,000. Your example says that's not the case. How do I understand what is going on that does not appear to be written down?

 

[rousemark]

Your last paragraph is very confusing to me.

In sales brochures I read for coverage of interest, the accelerated DB was described as up to x% of the policy DB, subject to an absolute dollar maximum and a minimum remaining death benefit requirement.

So, for example, say the sales literature says I could accelerate up to 60% of the DB as long as the maximum accelerated benefit does not exceed $100,000 and the remaining death benefit in policy is at least $15,000. If I had the budget for a $100,000 policy, I read the accelerated benefit details to say I could get $60,000. Your example says that's not the case. How do I understand what is going on that does not appear to be written down?

If it one of the "free" riders, everyone i have seen is mortality based. Thst would mean the actual benefit paid would be based on the expected increase in yout mortality that the condition presentd. A stage 1 cancer diagnosis would not pay as much as a stage four.