Med America Vs Genworth

[Tahoe Ray]

When we did the apples to apples, TransAmerica was more expensive than MedAmerica so the agent and I took them off the list as possibllities. MedAmerica was the most competitive to Genworth.

Gotcha....you're a relatively unique case due to you and your spouse's ages. I like MedAmerica and use them frequently...it's all about the situation though. Everyone says they'll have someone to take care of them, the question is why would you want to burden them? Most family members capable of giving care to you in your later years will have children, careers and other obligations.

At home care seems like a nice idea but often creates extraordinary pressure and resentment within a family.

 

[csalter]

For someone that was so worried about Genworth's financial ratings, it is sort've ironic you are considering replacing your coverage with a contract underwritten by a company with even lower financial ratings than Genworth.

You are so right. Don't think that I am not thinking about that. I saw the B++ ratings and it is there. I did post that you guys have helped me in that department earlier. The only reason I even looked at considering another policy is because of the ratings. I must say that although the MedAmerica policy does look very, very appealing to me, I may actually stay with what I have. The more I have read about this whole LTC issue, it seems to me that it is all such a big crapshoot. Every time I read an article it's either doom and gloom or it's "You really should have it because it can place your family at risk if you don't." I am very much leaning toward taking the financial hit now for 10 years. If I need it hopefully Genworth will be there in 25 or 30 years. Frankly, I hope it's the worst investment I have ever made, by not having to use it at all.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Gotcha....you're a relatively unique case due to you and your spouse's ages. I like MedAmerica and use them frequently...it's all about the situation though. Everyone says they'll have someone to take care of them, the question is why would you want to burden them? Most family members capable of giving care to you in your later years will have children, careers and other obligations.

At home care seems like a nice idea but often creates extraordinary pressure and resentment within a family.

I really want to be able to shield my wife and family from having to take care of me when I need help. If I can have someone be at the house most of the day if I need it, that would be good for me. You never know what kind of help you may or may not be able to get from your family. However, my dad had options. My aunt is an LVN and would have taken care of him and my niece who did take care of him was a stay at home mother. She moved in with him with her family and cared for him for two years until he died. She had three young children, but I believed those kids prolonged his life by another year as he was not alone.

 

[Tahoe Ray]

Frankly, I hope it's the worst investment I have ever made, by not having to use it.

Best quote of the thread and the way to look at most insurance. Except life insurance....thinking that you'll never use that is just delusional.

 

[CALTCAgent]

So I guess in your opinion, it would not be worth the change?

Each situation is different.

If you already can't identify potential family members to care for you, I consider that important information to the decision.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

previosly posted by caltcagent

If you already can't identify potential family members to care for you, I consider that important information to the decision.

Does anyone know their family's demographics in 20-30 years?

Who's going to be living where? What additional family members will there be down the road? Maybe that daughter you're looking at to provide care in 30 years will be needing her own care in 30 years.

The point is this:
If care is needed (tomorrow, or in 10, 20 or 30 years from now) the MOST important issue with a LTC policy is to provide the most flexibility as possible.

There will be methods of care avaibale in the future that haven't even been thought of yet. There are various experiments being done right now with robotic caregivers. Not sure if I've looked at a LTC policy recently that specifically states "We wil pay for unlicensed, informal robots".

If you need care down the road, do you want to get into a pissing contest with a claims representative about whether the policy's "Alternate Plan of Care" will pay for a benefit which is not specifically listed in the policy?
OR............
Would you rather receive CASH every month to do with what ever you wanted to do?

It's all about flexibility. What's more flexible, a policy that offers an optional 30% cash alternative or a policy that offers 100% cash?

Seems like a no-brainer to me and that's why I personally own a 100% cash-benefit policy.

 

[Mr_Ed]

previosly posted by caltcagent



Does anyone know their family's demographics in 20-30 years?

Who's going to be living where? What additional family members will there be down the road? Maybe that daughter you're looking at to provide care in 30 years will be needing her own care in 30 years.

The point is this:
If care is needed (tomorrow, or in 10, 20 or 30 years from now) the MOST important issue with a LTC policy is to provide the most flexibility as possible.

There will be methods of care avaibale in the future that haven't even been thought of yet. There are various experiments being done right now with robotic caregivers. Not sure if I've looked at a LTC policy recently that specifically states "We wil pay for unlicensed, informal robots".

If you need care down the road, do you want to get into a pissing contest with a claims representative about whether the policy's "Alternate Plan of Care" will pay for a benefit which is not specifically listed in the policy?
OR............
Would you rather receive CASH every month to do with what ever you wanted to do?

It's all about flexibility. What's more flexible, a policy that offers an optional 30% cash alternative or a policy that offers 100% cash?

Seems like a no-brainer to me and that's why I personally own a 100% cash-benefit policy.

it's not worth spending an extra 30% to 50% in premium.

 

[yankee466]

The last I checked, your daughter can always go to work for the local home health care agency and then get paid to take care of you by the agency with a lowly reimbursement policy. I knew of a client whose daughter actually set up her own home care company, and her and her husband were the sole employees....and they got paid by Genworth to take care of mom that way. Since they were both unemployed at the time, everyone benefited.

There appear to be clever ways to beat the system if you read the contracts.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

previously posted by Mr_Ed

it's not worth spending an extra 30% to 50% in premium.

That's your opinion. I'm sure the folks at MedAmerica who experienced a 14% sales growth in 2011 will strongly disagree with you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
previously posted by yankee466

The last I checked, your daughter can always go to work for the local home health care agency and then get paid to take care of you by the agency with a lowly reimbursement policy. I knew of a client whose daughter actually set up
her own home care company, and her and her husband were the sole employees....and they got paid by Genworth to take care of mom that way. Since they were both unemployed at the time, everyone benefited.

There appear to be clever ways to beat the system if you read the contracts.

True, but I'm not sure if a clever way to beat the system is to count on a daughter and a son-in-law in 20 or 30 years to both be unemployed.

 

[Mr_Ed]

previously posted by Mr_Ed



That's your opinion. I'm sure the folks at MedAmerica who experienced a 14% sales growth in 2011 will strongly disagree with you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
previously posted by yankee466



True, but I'm not sure if a clever way to beat the system is to count on a daughter and a son-in-law in 20 or 30 years to both be unemployed.

of course it's not worth spending 30% to 50% more in premium.
buy the cheaper reimbursement policy, especially since it's PQP and the medam is not pqp.

then save the extra $2,000 per year in premium.
put that extra $2k in an account each year to use for paying a relative to care for you.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

previously posted by Mr_Ed

then save the extra $2,000 per year in premium.
put that extra $2k in an account each year to use for paying a relative to care for you.

Good idea, unless of course the policyholder goes on claim after year 1 and has a savings account with only $2,000 in it. How's that going to work out?

What's wrong with spending that extra $2,000/year for a MedAmerica policy and wind up with a win-win situation?

And, as stated in earlier posts, for those at younger ages (40-52) MedAmerica is not 30%-50% more than their competition. In many cases they are very competitive and they offer a fairly liberal preferred health qualification, where Genworth is only standard.