gibby -- There was a reduced-benefit clause in the LTC policies we took, too. I was wrong when I wrote that we took them 15 years ago. It was 20! Also, we had to pay in for TEN years, not TWO, to (possibly) get something back. We'd paid in $11,000 in premiums at the end of ten years. This was a group LTC policy from Hancock, offered to us by my DH's then-employer. After ten years we became eligible for reduced-amount benefits. Each policy will pay $45/day for *skilled nursing care*, to a lifetime max of $82,000. The verbiage on any other type of care is obscure with lots of hoops and mazes. Looking at it now, I think we will have aided tbe taxpayer -- seems to me these benefits would reduce the cost of our care to Medicare. If I'd had any doubts about problems collecting on the policies, they were sustained when it took me six months to get a letter from Hancock stating that each of us had actually qualified for this reduced-benefit coverage. We eventually received single-page letters, undated and without signatures, with a lot of 'may qualify' and 'could be' phrasing. Their legal department could send us packing without breaking a sweat. Our situation is different than yours as to probable need for the policy. I'm glad you'll take that opt-out clause. You might want to see a letter stating exactly what YOUR reduced benefits will be, specific to YOUR policy and YOUR premiums, before you sign up.

Yes, but his information is accurate, so at least it lets Mary know a little bit more as she continues her research. I agree Mark has breached the terms of posting here, but sooner or later Mary's got to talk to an agent or broker to get some idea of whether she even qualifies for an LTC policy, aside from type and price. One can only go so far in continuing to post discussion threads. The trouble with LTC is that people talk about it and talk about it, but very few people actually do it. When people talk about financial planning, this is why I keep insisting that it has very little to do with ROI. True financial planning is mitigating your personal risks against not achieving the retirement lifestyle you want to have. If your LTC risk is high, as ours was, and you don't take steps to mitigate it, your financial planning was and is, inadequate. If you have a high risk of needing help with LTC and haven't budgeted properly for it - whether self-insuring or buying some type of LTC insurance - you are playing dice with your money and possibly involving some risk to those who would need to help take care of you. Mary's got the right idea - you want to deal with a company that is solid and reliable - but she's participated in many LTC discussions over the past four years, and still has yet to 'pull the trigger.' LTC insurance just keeps getting more expensive, and if one waits too long, sometimes the decision gets taken away, by a health issue that precludes getting any affordable LTC policy of any type. I have a sense of urgency about it, because I personally have friends/family who were offered LTC insurance in the last ten years and turned it down, and now that they're closer to retirement, honestly admit they regret not buying it. Now they're terrified, and rightly so...but it's too late for them. They're medically rateable, and can no longer afford it.

We bought LTCI last year at the ages of 49 and 51, and we're glad we did. I did not go into this with eyes half shut. I did uncountable hours of research, attended seminars, talked to people, interviewed agents, etc. I'm the type of person who doesn't allow anyone to talk me into anything - period. We bought a great policy through an A++ rated company, John Hancock. The average age one should buy LTC is 60ish - before health problems begin and the premiums are outrageous if you can even get it with certain conditions. I wasn't waiting 10 years to do so especially since our premiums would double by then even if we remain healthy...but who knows how our health will be in 10 years. Sure, we're healthy now and healthier than our parents were at this age, but no one has a crystal ball to determine how our health and at what age, will affect us. I'm not taking chances knowing DH's parents history. We have no kids or family that will care for us should we need it now or later, and to put 100% burden on the other spouse isn't fair, IMO. And even if we did have kids, who's to say they would want to interrupt their lives to care for sick parents. As cruel as this sounds, I prefer not to care for my mother as she's a difficult one now and she's relatively healthy. This LTC is piece of mind for us. While humans are living longer these days, from my research, it states that a very high percentage of people will require some kind of nursing home facility and the average time is 2.5 years. Should that time come now or later, the insurance is already there to be used. If we were to invest $$ for a rainy day to use toward this, it will take A VERY LONG TIME to match what insurance money is available to us NOW. We hope to never have to use it, but good to know it's in place if we have to, and we're lucky enough to be able to afford it. I realize many cannot. There's much to know about the various companies offering this including their ratings, how their policies work with the options & riders offered, claims stats, etc., and then choosing what is right for each individual. While most people tend to not think about LTC or discount it all together, I really think more people should learn about it and give it serious consideration. (No, I don't sell it). Frankly, IMHO, your sister is wise in thinking about her elder years that way.

Alisande, the concern I have about not having children is that there will be no kids around to help take care of us if and when we get old. DH and I both helped our parents a lot in their later years which helped 2 out of 3 of them live in their own home until they passed away in their mid-80s. Of course there's no guarantee even if you do have kids that they will be willing or able to help you out when you are older but if you have none you KNOW they won't. My father died in his early 60s of heart disease - that could happen to me too of course. My LTC plan returns all the $ paid if I kick the bucket before age 65 and a portion of if I die before 75. Here are some other reasons I chose to go with the LTC insurance - along with the fact I'm pretty much of a planner by nature vs. someone who would just let the chips fall where they may as you say. Philosophically, DH and I want to take responsibility for our own care if at all possible rather than planning for taxpayers to fund our long term care through Medicaid. If we ultimately cannot afford our own care we will at least know we did our best to try to provide for ourselves. I know once I retire I'm going to be nervous about running out of money before I die. LTC insurance gives me some peace of mind about that, knowing that I would not be paying out of pocket to get help in my home if and when I need it. And I do want help in my home if possible rather than having to go to a nursing home - which is currently the requirement if your care is paid for by Medicaid. I have a lot of friends whose parents have been diagnosed with dementia/Alzheimers - some at a fairly young age. These folks are needing YEARS of LTC. The thought of this happening to one of us is very disconcerting - leaving the other person spending an exorbitant amount of money for care of the spouse - possibly not having enough left for their own needs. So we shall see what happens. I know I would not be able to get coverage on the open market if I hadn't had the open enrollment through my employer. I can afford the coverage now and hopefully will be able to in the future as well. Whatever the case at least I have all my options open at this point. If I had not signed up I may never have had the chance to get coverage again in the future. It is insurance though - and as such could be lots of money spent on something that's never used. If you live to a ripe old age and that's the case then that's a pretty good outcome in my opinion as long as the LTC coverage doesn't leave you "insurance poor".