On Feb 4, 7:50 am, darknes...[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

No offence was taken ... I just forgot to put the :-) thingy on the
end :-)

On Feb 3, 5:15 pm, "bowgus" <bow...[at]rogers.com> wrote:
- quote -

I don't think the OP meant to be offensive but your point is well made
to all of us (who tend to be flip, at least, like myself).

His sentence makes sense in a *financial* context not a quality of
life context.

I know people who are disabled who have made good and positive lives
for themselves, I also know people who would probably prefer not to be
here.

On Feb 2, 4:58 am, "Mike" <msgrinn...[at]charter.net> wrote:
- quote -

Easy, I am disabled.

- quote -

Bowgus,

For the time being I'll take it and be thankful. I still think it's
ironic to be better dead than disabled....

- quote -

I'll try again ... Mike (the OP) wants to supplement his 65%. I'm
saying forget it ... stick with the 65% and be thankful.

- quote -

a) you ignore the possibility of NOT staying with that company
If you quit or are downsized, the new company MIGHT not
offer ANY disability coverage.

b) it has been my experience of over 40 years, that MOST
legitimate claims are paid. If it appears that it is going
to be a LONG claim, the company ussualy will offer some
kind of cash settelment.

Cal Lester CLU

- quote -

Well no. I'm saying go with the group disability coverage of 65%, and
think twice about paying for any additional coverage as an individual,
because as an individual, it will likely be very very difficult to
collect. If a person were really concerned, there are other ways to
plan for contingencies ... like go for that promotion and/or pay
raise ... 65% of $50K is $32.5K and 65% of $100K is $65K ... too easy.
Or ... well, there are other very positive ways to better oneself
financially than to pay into ... an insurance lottery where winning is
imo for losers :-)

,
- quote -

Then you are obviously recommending "throwing out the baby with the
bathwater"
(if one company is doing a bad job, then boycott ALL companies)

Cal Lester CLU

- quote -



:-) I have a friend who is a visiting GI surgeon from a developing
country. As a visiting fellow he did not have the same benefits as a
regular physician. At 39 he had a heart attack and massive stroke
that left him alive, but unable to read and therefore practice
medicine. He has no disability insurance at all but does have life
insurance. He is much better now, but still unable to read. I don't
want to end up in a situation where I would be better off dead than
disabled.

Of course we don't know the all the aspects of the situation, but it
is short-sighted to say that because of one bad apple, the entire tree
should be cut down. Maybe we should cease going to Doctors because
someone's got a malpractice story to tell.

To the OP, look for high comdex ratings and reputable/well known
companies. You can also review a companies complaint history. Any
decent inurance carrier can provide you with this information on both
their company and others.

No matter the company, it is unlikely that you will be able to attain
100% income coverage (income tax free or not). Most disability
carriers also "rate" your job (5A, 4A, 3A, etc, etc.) Certain job
classes are entitled to more coverage than others. Some job classes
are completely uninsurable no matter what your health status. If you
are able to pick-up more coverage, the own-occupation rider is
definitely worth taking a look at (as someone already said).

Lastly, LTC may be a viable alternative. It has its limitations in
that it will not cover disability unless you require extended health
care. However, thanks to medical advancements many of us are living
through major health problems that should have killed us.

On Jan 30, 2:17 pm, "Mike" <msgrinn...[at]charter.net> wrote:
- quote -

The assumption is that doctors are disabled less, and for less time,
than other types of workers. Probably the actuarial loss ratio bears
this out. Also physicians are the type of people who tend to have big
personal cost bases (big houses, kids in private school and colleges,
etc.) so they may have more incentive to get back to work. A final
factor is that insurers compete quite hard to get some professional
groups because 1). their policies are bigger (so more premium income)
and 2). there are prestige/ business reasons to be a dominant provider
to those groups.

There is a lot of research that top managers feel less stressed and
more in control of their jobs than middle managers and have lower
absenteeism (work done on the British civil service, but substantiated
in other areas).

- quote -

I'm not up on the US rules. Basically as I understand it, SS
disability is the leading form of disability income in the US (other
than VA). Also different states have Worker's Compensation but they
are trying to crack down on it (employers pay for it, so it is a
political hot potato). However it doesn't pay a whole heck of a lot
I don't think. I don't know if it pays out at the same time as a
private sector plan-- it might not be advantageous to apply for it as
it will significantly discount your pension income from social
security.

It's worth talking to a provider like UNUM about a policy-- you might
well be self employed some day. Also you may be eligible for a policy
through a professional association, university alumni benefits, etc.

Whatever you do, take this stuff out *before* you take up sky diving
or scuba diving or flying a light plane as a hobby ;-).

- quote -

I work in a large hospital where I am a systems programmer. The LT
disability insurance provided to me covers 65% of my income. The LT
for physicians covers 85% of theirs. What is the assumption? That if
a physician needs to use the insurance than he/she i REALLY disabled
versus just faking like the rest of us?

Another point: does Social Security cover disability when workplace
provided LT disability is not sufficient?

On Jan 30, 12:19 am, "bowgus" <bow...[at]rogers.com> wrote:
- quote -

There's no question that some claimants take the system for a ride,
and conversely insurance companies play hardball. Your case sounds
extreme, but not at all unlikely.

I don't know how one would assess the ethicality of insurance
companies/ willingness to pay. I know professional groups (like
lawyers) have access to schemes which seem to provide good coverage
(professionals have relatively low disability rates-- if you self
identify by what you do, you are less likely to stop practising).

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:06:18 -0600, Mike wrote:
I am looking for something to cover the 35%
- quote -

I've seen long term care insurance used in a small number of cases where
income was high enough and LTD insufficient. Premiums were not an issue;
the coverage was the important item. If you're on long term disability
then maybe you can't do two of six activities of daily living. For what
it's worth.

On Jan 28, 12:06 pm, "Mike" <msgrinn...[at]charter.net> wrote:
- quote -

FWIW ... For disability, I wouldn't waste the money on any insurance
other than my "group" insurance. Why's that? A friends mom had an
unfortunate accident ... she was filling up her car and another driver
lost control and pinned her between the two cars. That was over 2
years ago and she is still in litigation ... the company is still
stalling, still playing dirty tricks (looks a lot like they hired
someone to open up the gate and let her dog loose hoping to get
pictures of her out of her wheelchair ... the dog was run down and
killed), still threatening this and that, offering a ridiculously low
settlement ... but basically dragging it out as long as they legally
can. Sure she has a lawyer ... but there's only so much can be done
(my understanding). Unfortunately she did not have group insurance so
she is basically on her own.

" > Thanks for your insights. You state that I cannot insure my
- quote -

You missed the point. To do as you ask would give you 100% of income TAX
FREE.

There would be NO incentive to go back to work ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Insurance companies are NOT DUMB.

Cal Lester CLU

On Jan 29, 4:22 pm, "Mike" <msgrinn...[at]charter.net> wrote:
- quote -

At least in the private market, when I was buying this cover, the
practical limit was about 60% of your income, whether from your
employer or a private policy.

Perhaps my analogy was a bad one, but the point from the insurer's
point of view was they did *not* want you to be incentivised to stay
disabled.

- quote -

Most people have little or no insurance *at all* for disability.

"Mike" <msgrinnell[at]charter.net> wrote in message news:1170084507.998124.158210[at]h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Your normal income is taxed also, probably at a higher rate than
the disability income. So, your net (after tax) disability income
could be 70% or more of your net normal income.

- quote -

The other aspect to keep in mind is that when unemployed, one's
commute expenses and other job-related expenses are often greatly
reduced.

--
John Richards

- quote -

Thanks for your insights. You state that I cannot insure my
possessions for more than they are worth. I'm not looking to insure
myself against more than my income. Just the same as my income. My
employer provides my long-term disability insurance and so the 65% of
my income that would be replaced by that would be taxable, probably
bringing my net income to 50% or less, then.

Given that, I would be looking for a policy to cover the 30-50% of my
income not replaced by the LT disability provided by my employer. I
keep hearing about how under-insured most people are for disability so
it surprises me there is not more chatter about this issue.


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you are responding. "Trim" means that except for a FEW lines to add context, the previous post is deleted.

On Jan 28, 5:06 pm, "Mike" <msgrinn...[at]charter.net> wrote:
- quote -

Normally insurers will *not* let you insure more than 60-70% of your
income.

The reason is they do not want you to be disincentivised to go back to
work. Analagously, you can't insure possessions for more than they
are worth (it would create 'moral hazard' ie an incentive to break
things).

If you have insurance that adds up to more than that level, the
insurers have normally inserted a clause allowing them to lower the
amount they pay you. Note that the arguments between insurers over
this (who pays what) can delay your claim.

If you have employer provided insurance, this is normally far cheaper
than individual insurance from the LTD providers (UNUM used to be a
big name in this area). *however* it is (not sure about the US
situation) taxable when you receive benefits (whereas individually
purchased insurance, the benefit is not) . *and* it usually covers
you less well.

For most people, I usually suggest (note: I am not a qualified
financial planner, nor a US resident- caveat emptor) the following
general principles:

- your employer's insurance is probably the best solution if available

- if you anticipate becoming self employed *or* you have some reason
to suspect that at some time in the future you will have a disability
(but failure to disclose is the main reason for disallowing benefits)
then you can take out an individual LTD contract. They cost the earth
(good ones) and you need a gold plated one, with a very high quality
insurer (you will need to do your homework on all this-- a lot of
insurers pulled out of the market when LTD claims soared due to
'middle class diseases' like depression and back pain). There is no
point not having a good individual contract (eg 'own occupation'
definition of disability, not 'any occupation'-- the usual insurance
term, from memory, is 'class 5') because the insurance company will do
anything it can to squirm out of paying you (this is why you need an
insurer with a good rep, and a blue chip balance sheet).

Rates rise as you get older, so the sooner you take out a contract,
the lower the rate. Obviously if you develop a potentially disabling
condition in the meantime, it will be difficult or impossible to get
insured.

- trade or professional associations often offer LTD insurance. This
can be a lot cheaper than an individual contract.

- remember you won't be paying tax on this income (UK law, not sure
about US) if you paid the premium for the contract yourself. So your
actual 'replacement' income would be only about 50% of your gross
salaried income to be in the same place financially.

- you need an inflation clause on the benefit. This is *long term*
insurance. If you are disabled for say, 15 years, and inflation is
3%, your buying power has fallen by 36%.

- the one thing you can, and should do, to lower the cost of LTD
insurance, is *get a long deductible period*. There is a big
difference in premium between a 30 day deductible, and a 180 day
deductible (not so much after that). In effect, you will be self
insuring for the first 6 months, and you have to have the financial
werewithal to do that (how many of us have 6 months of living expenses
in ready cash or liquid investments?).

But you can save yourself a fortune by doing this (10-20% of the cost
of policy, per month, times 30 years say, is 5 years of premiums).

In my experience, most people have far too little LTD insurance, and
far too much life insurance. Unsurprisingly, the latter is an easy
sale, the former a complex sale. And most of us find it easier to
contemplate being dead, than sitting round the home all day depressed
and driving our partner nuts, whilst in constant pain from a bad back.

LET ME SAY AGAIN: I am not credentialed in this area, nor do I live in
the US of A. So you will need to do your own research and get
professional advice.