LTC for 64F

some agents want what's best for the consumer.
No such thing. Only know what was best use of the funds/premiums after it all plays out.

The stand alone LTC my good friends parents had did them no good when they were killed when a semi lost it cargo & killed both of them.

Would have been best for them had they just put the LTC premiums in a coffee can or bought huge term life & maxed their underinsured motorist on their auto policy & bought a huge umbrella liability policy that also covered underinsured. But that would have been dumb as they had a much higher chance of going into nursing home than being hit by a semi. But the LTC was not best for them in their specific case, right?
 
Don't assume.
Roughly 30% of my clients buy hybrids.

So it sounds like the problem may be the way you sell or present hybrids. I dont know anyone who sells or presents hybrids as "you get all three benefits." I do know agents who present it as "if x happens you get y, etc."
 
No such thing. Only know what was best use of the funds/premiums after it all plays out.

The stand alone LTC my good friends parents had did them no good when they were killed when a semi lost it cargo & killed both of them.

Would have been best for them had they just put the LTC premiums in a coffee can or bought huge term life & maxed their underinsured motorist on their auto policy & bought a huge umbrella liability policy that also covered underinsured. But that would have been dumb as they had a much higher chance of going into nursing home than being hit by a semi. But the LTC was not best for them in their specific case, right?
So it sounds like the problem may be the way you sell or present hybrids. I dont know anyone who sells or presents hybrids as "you get all three benefits." I do know agents who present it as "if x happens you get y, etc."


If you do the math (and understand basic microeconomics) the hybrid is rarely a better deal. In most cases, for about the same premium, a healthy person (or couple) can get better benefits if they buy two separate policies: one traditional LTCi policy and one GUL.

By buying 2 separate policies at least the death benefit is guaranteed.
The death benefit is NOT guaranteed with a hybrid.
 
If you do the math (and understand basic microeconomics) the hybrid is rarely a better deal. In most cases, for about the same premium, a healthy person (or couple) can get better benefits if they buy two separate policies: one traditional LTCi policy and one GUL.

By buying 2 separate policies at least the death benefit is guaranteed.
The death benefit is NOT guaranteed with a hybrid.

Again, its how you are presenting hybrids. No one buys an asset-based hybrid for the life insurance.

As a matter of fact people who buy hybrids do NOT care about life insurance. I would bet that they care so little about it that if companies could offer them something tangible that people liked enough instead of life insurance, they would still buy hybrids.

People buy hybrids because the life insurance lets them know they get their money back guaranteed if never have a LTC event and the premiums are guaranteed.

So essentially what they are paying three times more for (according to you) is not life insurance but a guarantee.

That word guarantee is a VERY COSTLY word! No matter what business we are talking!

When you added return of premium to a traditional LTCi policy years ago to guarantee they could get there money back if they never had an event, guess what, it costs money.

The major difference between the person who buys the asset-based hybrid vs the traditional LTCi policy is they are willing to pay the cost for that one word, "GUARANTEED!"
 
Last edited:
Again, its how you are presenting hybrids. No one buys an asset-based hybrid for the life insurance.

As a matter of fact people who buy hybrids do NOT care about life insurance. I would bet that they care so little about it that if companies could offer them something tangible that people liked enough instead of life insurance, they would still buy hybrids.

People buy hybrids because the life insurance lets them know they get their money back guaranteed if never have a LTC event and the premiums are guaranteed.

So essentially what they are paying three times more for (according to you) is not life insurance but a guarantee.

That word guarantee is a VERY COSTLY word! No matter what business we are talking!

When you added return of premium to a traditional LTCi policy years ago to guarantee they could get there money back if they never had an event, guess what, it costs money.

The major difference between the person who buys the asset-based hybrid vs the traditional LTCi policy is they are willing to pay the cost for that one word, "GUARANTEED!"

That makes sooooooooooo much sense.
Let me pay MORE money to the insurance company so that they can give some of my own money back to me if I never need to use it.
 
That makes sooooooooooo much sense.
Let me pay MORE money to the insurance company so that they can give some of my own money back to me if I never need to use it.
Yeah, that makes sense to a lot of people.

Have you ever heard of ROP term? Or a lower rate for an ROP annuity?

That's why these clients buy hybrids...that and not having to see rate increases.

I present both objectively. I want them to buy coverage that they're happy with. I tell them that traditional LTC is the best "bang for the buck" but guess what, some people would rather spend more on the guarantees and not have to deal w/ "use it or lose it".

You can educate your clients and make a recommendation but at the end of the day, they are better off with coverage either way, even if I don't fundamentally agree with how they get there.
 
Back
Top