One observation about the article - it doesn't really go much into why a single wouldn't need a LTC policy. It made three points: you may not need a long stay,and therefore Medicare would cover it. (45% were in this position according to the article.) The second point was that if you impoverished yourself, you could be put on Medicaid. The third point was that you would lose the money paid into standard LTC policies if you didn't use it. That's why the author was recommending the whole life policy, if one wanted coverage. (But that is a somewhat separate issue from whether you need LTC insurance at all). And my overall good health now makes it more, not less, likely that I will need assistance some day.
To the arguments against LTC for singles I can add two others the author did not mention: that you may not need it at all (but this is a complete roll of the dice); and, as my FA pointed out, you could take out a reverse mortgage, if you own your own house.
But I think the article ends up making a pretty good case for single, childless people securing some kind of LTC insurance. It points out that 55% of people using these facilities DO stay longer than the Medicare 3 month length. That you would likely want a better quality facility than you can obtain with Medicaid. That you are more likely NOT to have family members who can take care of you. That you have more options, such as staying in your home. That you can spend down your nest egg with less anxiety.
Again, I can add some personal points in favor of a policy - that my policy, at least, also covers various rehab and disability scenarios, not just a final stay from which there is no return. My policy also allows some control over the final pool of benefits. I have some limited ability to control premium increases, in exchange for keeping benefits at a given level. And my overall good health now makes it MORE likely I will need LTC in the future.
Altogether, the flexibility and peace of mind are important to me.
