I still do not understand the "need" for long term care insurance. I understand that long term nursing or in-home care can be expensive, but shouldn't that be part of financial planning, not just a risk to insure against. The way these policies are priced, and the high likelihood of needing some kind of care, means that a policy will cost a significant portion of the potential benefit, plus in most cases I need to give the insurance company nearly unlimited ability to raise premiums in the future while the benefits remain the same. These seem more like bets on cost sharing than insurance. In fact, policies I've seen all had some limitation on the term of the "long term" care, so I'm not even insuring against the very much less likely case of spending decades under care which would be a more easily justified low likelihood but highly expensive incident for which I might like to share risk, but mostly they simply cover up to a few years under nursing care at the expected cost (in advance) of a few less years under nursing care with allowance to increase that cost whenever they like.
I insure my house against fire and other damage because these are low likelihood events that would have large financial consequences. I think one of the major problems with the health insurance market is that these products are not insurance in the same way, instead they mostly try to provide "insurance" for commonplace occurrences, so have to charge a premium that on average is large enough to cover all the expected outlays plus huge paperwork costs for the insurer and providers, and maybe a little profit besides. These are more like a cost sharing agreement than straight insurance and while there are some catastrophic care policies in the market, there are also significant distortions of medical costs and pricing caused by the prevalence of the usual low deductible health care insurance.
If the likelihood of needing long term care in my lifetime is really as high as insurance companies and their salesman in these markets claim (up to 1 in 2 people I've heard) then shouldn't I plan to have enough assets in case this happens to me, rather than pay in advance half or more of the cost of such an occurrence plus overhead, essentially betting the insurance company that my care will cost more including all the overhead than they project. I don't insure against divorce, a similarly likely and potentially expensive proposition. The idea that I might spend thousands of dollars a year so that in the event of a divorce I would not lose half my assets (and similarly my spouse would require a corresponding policy) is so silly that we laugh at the notion.