Priced Out Of His Policy

[Arthur Rudnick]

....."they were deprived of the use of their money" a Neasham
reference.....maybe it's a criminal complaint instead of a civil matter...

Is that the best you could come up with?

If you read the article, this guy attempted to sue the company and his case was thrown out of court. What does that tell you?

How about throwing every agent in jail who sold UL policies years ago and the policies blew up?

The potential for rate increases are clearly stated on page 1 of every LTC policy. An applicant signs off on a Suitability & Financial statement that clearly shows the company's history of increases and states that rates can be increased in the future.
What is it that you don't understand?

Hey, Mr. Ed, what was it that Rick said?

 

[Mr_Ed]

that post was to ms ed's "handful" comment...I agree that there were around 400.

Let's say that 4,000 policies are getting the 90% increase. (The amount is not that high, but let's just say that it is that high.)

That means that less than 1/2 of 1% of John Hancock's LTCi policyholders are getting this 90% premium increase.

I would call .4% a "handful of policyholders".
.4% means 4 policyholders for every 1,000 policyholders.
That's a handful.
That's negligible.

In reality, it is closer to .04%.
That means 4 policyholders for every 10,000 policyholders.

4 people out of 10,000 is most certainly "a handful".

And the reality is that most of those policyholders will reduce their inflation benefit, thereby avoiding the premium increase.

And you are incorrect that these policies are 8 or 9 years old.

These policies were first sold in 1999 until about 2002 making them 10 to 13 years old.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Is that the best you could come up with?

If you read the article, this guy attempted to sue the company and his case was thrown out of court. What does that tell you?

How about throwing every agent in jail who sold UL policies years ago and the policies blew up?

The potential for rate increases are clearly stated on page 1 of every LTC policy. An applicant signs off on a Suitability & Financial statement that clearly shows the company's history of increases and states that rates can be increased in the future.
What is it that you don't understand?

Hey, Mr. Ed, what was it that Rick said?

Rick said something like:

"I can explain it, but I can't make you understand it."


Ron White said it this way:

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

Ron White said it this way:

A classic...........

 

[tlmarketing]

Let's say that 4,000 policies are getting the 90% increase. (The amount is not that high, but let's just say that it is that high.)

That means that less than 1/2 of 1% of John Hancock's LTCi policyholders are getting this 90% premium increase.

I would call .4% a "handful of policyholders".
.4% means 4 policyholders for every 1,000 policyholders.
That's a handful.
That's negligible.
It's not negligible, it's real people you are talking about...not some percentage...


In reality, it is closer to .04%.
That means 4 policyholders for every 10,000 policyholders.

4 people out of 10,000 is most certainly "a handful".

And the reality is that most of those policyholders will reduce their inflation benefit, thereby avoiding the premium increase.
How long does that help avoid a premium increase for?

And you are incorrect that these policies are 8 or 9 years old.
No, I'm definitely not wrong as I am looking at an actual JH policy issued in May 2003

These policies were first sold in 1999 until about 2002 making them 10 to 13 years old.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms Ed - Are you really the president of your local ABWA in NJ?

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

I would call .4% a "handful of policyholders".

Actually, 8,000,000 policyholders and 400 with an increase of 90% represents .005%.

Less than a handful.

 

[tlmarketing]

Actually, 8,000,000 policyholders and 400 with an increase of 90% represents .005%.

Less than a handful.

it's still 400 people, and thousands more who have had price increases that are unreasonable.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

OK, you win, game over!

 

[tlmarketing]

OK, you win, game over!

i was just getting warmed up...oh well.

 

[billberry12]

tlmarketing,

I have a novel idea.

You should not buy it nor sell it. Walk away from it. Let these other folks that do or do not buy it make their own informed decision.

I would like to add one assumption that you are making that is dead wrong. You are assuming that people that get LTCI don't use it for 20-30 years.

That handful of people that get it, then get sick in a few years, could care less about rate increases in the past or the future.

 

[djs]

I bought my house back in 2008. I'm happy too, because since then, the price has not gone up at all!!!!

Ooops, something tells me thats not so good :(

My realtor didn't even bother to tell me that the value of the home may go down 30%. Somethings are just market forces at work.

I don't sell LTC, there are to many moving parts for me to keep with and I feel its something people who sell it need to know it inside and out.

That said, rate increases are part of the program. An insurance company can only guess what facilities will charge 10-20 years from now and what the utilization will be, what affects inflation will have, etc. Its a guessing game.

If providers posted rates today for 20 years from now, consumers could make much more informed choices and insurance companies could do a much better job of setting realistic rates. Unfortunately, providers can't post those rates either.

This is the kind of insurance story that is hard, since realistically, rates had to go up but realistically, it put the client in a position he no longer could afford the piece of mind he thought he bought years ago. It's actually a no-win situation, except for the doctors and lawyers.

Dan