LTCi Lead in Paducah, Ky

[jdeasy]

Anyone here work the Paducah, Ky area? Male, 67, non smoker. Has Genworth LTCi now. Rate just went from about $175/mo to $225/mo.

Would like to see if there's a better deal.

Send me a PM if interested and I will give you the contact info.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Anyone here work the Paducah, Ky area? Male, 67, non smoker. Has Genworth LTCi now. Rate just went from about $175/mo to $225/mo.

Would like to see if there's a better deal.

Send me a PM if interested and I will give you the contact info.

he won't find a better deal.

 

[ltcadviser]

Anyone here work the Paducah, Ky area? Male, 67, non smoker. Has Genworth LTCi now. Rate just went from about $175/mo to $225/mo.

Would like to see if there's a better deal.

Send me a PM if interested and I will give you the contact info.

He will never find a better deal. Pay the premium and move on. If he is looking, the only thing he will find is a slick willie salesperson.

 

[TwiLight]

JD, you may find this enlightening about the Genworth Rate Increases.

They are still competitive with this increase

More Bad News for Long-Term Care Insurance: A Major Carrier Reassess the Business Amidst More Rate Hikes - Forbes

 

[ltcadviser]

JD, you may find this enlightening about the Genworth Rate Increases.

They are still competitive with this increase

More Bad News for Long-Term Care Insurance: A Major Carrier Reassess the Business Amidst More Rate Hikes - Forbes

I am not sure I find anything Howard Gleckman writes enlightening. Every article he contributes is slanted towards furthering his public agenda of developing universal long term care coverage for US citizens.

While his agenda is noble, to constantly criticize private LTC because it runs counter to your agenda is not. He needs to fully disclose his agenda upfront as a contributor to Forbes online content rather than to have people believe this article is an independent unbiased report.

 

[jdeasy]

Thanks for the replies. I told him upfront that I thought Genworth was probably a leader but I would ask.

The responses match my initial guy feelings on it.

 

[TwiLight]

I am not sure I find anything Howard Gleckman writes enlightening. Every article he contributes is slanted towards furthering his public agenda of developing universal long term care coverage for US citizens.

While his agenda is noble, to constantly criticize private LTC because it runs counter to your agenda is not. He needs to fully disclose his agenda upfront as a contributor to Forbes online content rather than to have people believe this article is an independent unbiased report.

REALLY....you actually believe that there is any merit to a Universal LTC proposal for the US.....

You have got to get out of the hole you have your head stuck in.... We already have Universal LTC.

The defining moment in the Term - "Universal" is that the Gov't seeks control over the market it currently does not control.....Hate to bust your bubble, it already controls it and has a 99.999% tax of all assets on those who cannot afford it which would include the bottom 50% of the income bracket.

The next 40% or middle income to upper middle classes will loose most of their retirements and savings also unless they purchase a stop gap in STCi or LTCi. The top 10% income bracket pays for its own LTCi solution and so on and so on.

There is no debate on Universal LTC..... That was lost during the Bush-Clinton administrations.

 

[billberry12]

I don't see where ltcadviser said any thing about thinking universal LTCI is doable. He just said the person that wrote the article did.

This ObamaCare mess would be a walk in the park compared to trying to make the numbers work for universal LTCI.

 

[TwiLight]

I don't see where ltcadviser said any thing about thinking universal LTCI is doable. He just said the person that wrote the article did.

This ObamaCare mess would be a walk in the park compared to trying to make the numbers work for universal LTCI.

The numbers already work for Universal LTCi because we already have it.....

Any ObamaCare add on would be a cut in revenue for the Tax Man. We already have a 99.99% tax on all revenue and Assets for those who cannot afford it now. So why would the Gov't even attempt to change what they already get.

What are we going to do, Tax the top 10% who pay for their own coverage already so that the top 10% can have universal care....the bottom 90% either pay for insurance or loose everything they ever accumulated to the tax man in order to pay for care now...Forcing the wealthy into this system will not make a difference on who or how it gets paid.

 

[billberry12]

Your 99.99% tax doesn't hold water because it doesn't put a dent in the cost to provide this care to those who get it. 99.99% of a small number is not much.