ziggy29
Moderator Emeritus
Thoughts appreciated. I just got a letter about a new employee benefit for long term care insurance which, if we sign up in the initial offering period between now and February 29, offers guaranteed acceptance. Megacorp is offering this new group benefit through John Hancock, which as I understand it is as solid as they come in the field of long term care insurance.
The most attractive aspect of this is that in the initial offering period there is guaranteed acceptance. For that reason if nothing else, I'm inclined to at least consider it. I don't want to be at a point where it's worth considering 10, 20, 30 years from now and one of us is uninsurable. If we decline it now (open enrollment is through 2/29 for coverage beginning April 1), we'd need to provide proof of insurability which may or may not be a problem at the time.
But at the same time, I'm considering the cost of it and how much I could save and invest if I either don't take it or decline the automatic inflation protection. Looking at the option for $150 a day for up to 6 years, for both of us (I'm 42, DW is 39) it's $50 a month with no inflation protection...but $196 a month with an automatic 5% annual inflation rider. Using a spreadsheet it looks like 30-40 years from now, if I invested the difference between the inflation rider and not having it would take about 250-300 days of paid coverage to "break even" before I would have been better with the inflation protection, assuming I invested the after-tax difference in premiums at 8-9%. Without an inflation rider I could still purchase additional coverage annually to keep up with inflation (with no POI), but that wouldn't result in lifetime level premiums and they'd likely rise by 5% or more each year if I bought more. Yeah, $150 a day will be almost nothing in 30 years, but as I said, we can buy more and at least we have something while we can't be turned down in underwriting.
Then there's the uncertainty of what will happen in the next 20, 30, 40 years in terms of the industry, in terms of how it's insured and (if we keep increasing the nanny state) if long-term care will eventually be taxpayer-funded. And even if I didn't think that was a possibility, my concern with the inflation rider is that even though this policy is fully portable if I lose my job, I don't think I can eat $200 a month while unemployed or if I get a new job later with a huge pay cut. Right now $200 a month isn't a huge deal -- in the future it could be, especially if I lose this job and/or become FIREd.
My inclination is to take it, but without the inflation rider just to get my foot in the door while we don't need to worry about being insurable...especially since it has a nonforfeiture clause which means that if we are continously insured for at least three years we will always be entitled to at least some benefits. Plus I like that it's through Hancock which is probably the most solid name in this particular field. And through a cafeteria benefits plan with payroll deductions, the $50 per month is more like $33 after tax since the amount is exempt from income tax and SS/Medicare taxes. I just have a feeling that over the next 20 years or so, how long term care is funded (and what is covered) will change enough that paying up now for the inflation rider is a bad deal compared to investing the difference myself.
Have any of you experienced this lately? What do you think? Is there anything else I need to consider? We do have adequate insurance elsewhere -- life, health, disability and umbrella liability are all covered.
The most attractive aspect of this is that in the initial offering period there is guaranteed acceptance. For that reason if nothing else, I'm inclined to at least consider it. I don't want to be at a point where it's worth considering 10, 20, 30 years from now and one of us is uninsurable. If we decline it now (open enrollment is through 2/29 for coverage beginning April 1), we'd need to provide proof of insurability which may or may not be a problem at the time.
But at the same time, I'm considering the cost of it and how much I could save and invest if I either don't take it or decline the automatic inflation protection. Looking at the option for $150 a day for up to 6 years, for both of us (I'm 42, DW is 39) it's $50 a month with no inflation protection...but $196 a month with an automatic 5% annual inflation rider. Using a spreadsheet it looks like 30-40 years from now, if I invested the difference between the inflation rider and not having it would take about 250-300 days of paid coverage to "break even" before I would have been better with the inflation protection, assuming I invested the after-tax difference in premiums at 8-9%. Without an inflation rider I could still purchase additional coverage annually to keep up with inflation (with no POI), but that wouldn't result in lifetime level premiums and they'd likely rise by 5% or more each year if I bought more. Yeah, $150 a day will be almost nothing in 30 years, but as I said, we can buy more and at least we have something while we can't be turned down in underwriting.
Then there's the uncertainty of what will happen in the next 20, 30, 40 years in terms of the industry, in terms of how it's insured and (if we keep increasing the nanny state) if long-term care will eventually be taxpayer-funded. And even if I didn't think that was a possibility, my concern with the inflation rider is that even though this policy is fully portable if I lose my job, I don't think I can eat $200 a month while unemployed or if I get a new job later with a huge pay cut. Right now $200 a month isn't a huge deal -- in the future it could be, especially if I lose this job and/or become FIREd.
My inclination is to take it, but without the inflation rider just to get my foot in the door while we don't need to worry about being insurable...especially since it has a nonforfeiture clause which means that if we are continously insured for at least three years we will always be entitled to at least some benefits. Plus I like that it's through Hancock which is probably the most solid name in this particular field. And through a cafeteria benefits plan with payroll deductions, the $50 per month is more like $33 after tax since the amount is exempt from income tax and SS/Medicare taxes. I just have a feeling that over the next 20 years or so, how long term care is funded (and what is covered) will change enough that paying up now for the inflation rider is a bad deal compared to investing the difference myself.
Have any of you experienced this lately? What do you think? Is there anything else I need to consider? We do have adequate insurance elsewhere -- life, health, disability and umbrella liability are all covered.