capjak
Full time employment: Posting here.
Nice Work Houston! ThanksSo, a quick comparison (using financial calculator apps but, fairly accurate I think, if you accept my return assumption):
Case 1-Need LTC @ age 76/75; assume both need LTC & live to 96/95 & 4% inflation.
>Self Insure= ($151k)X1.07*20=$610k => 6yrs LTC for two persons
>LTCi= 20yrs LTC for two persons [WINNER]
Case 2- Need LTC @ age 86/85; assume both need LTC & live to 96/95
>Self Insure= ($151k)X1.07*30=$1,225k => 13+yrs LTC for two persons [WINNER]
>LTCi= 10yrs care for two persons
Case 3 (actuarial averages)-Need LTC @ age 79.5/78.5; both use LTC for 2.5yrs until 82/81 (note that I used an average of male/female longevity for simplicity).
>Self Insure= ($151k)X1.07*23.5=$779k => 8yrs LTC for two persons [WINNER]
>LTCi= 2.5yrs care for two persons
I think there are a few take-aways here:
1. This kind of policy would be effective for the worst-case, catastrophic situation (early onset of a long lasting debilitating disease for one or both partners).
2. Self-insuring is the better ‘financial’ decision in almost all cases except extreme ones described by #1 above.
3. You have to have an insurance product with predictable premiums (like this one seems to be), to even begin to do a NPV/NFV comparison, and that still leaves the uncertainty on the LTC cost side.
If I understand correctly the assumption is at 7% return (some would have this money currently in a fixed asset I would think in order to have it available), it would be interesting to calculate what the break even %return would be for say 3 to 10 years longterm care vs the Asset based. Also the premiums are guaranteed not to increase or decrease that is what some people find attractive about the asset based LTC.