On Dec 21 2007, 6:02*pm, sandybeth <sandy...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

You might consider her getting an immediate annuity. $100,000 should
buy an $1,615 / month policy.

--
Ron

"Thumper" <jaylsmith[at]comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jojqm3ld5643ogheb44vmalcm8hrt5a9lk[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

My mom has a State Farm LTC policy that forgives the annual premium if
she's in a residential care situation. While receiving home care she
has to pay the premium and the 20% deductible.

We worked out a budget showing that her present lifestyle is
sustainable essentially permanently if she moves into assisted living.
In addition to not paying for the policy, expenses related to her
condo disappear in that case. The policy pays for the duration of her
lifetime. Should her personal assets be exhausted my brother and I can
bear the expense remaining after the LTC reimbursement and her SSI
benefit.

She's already picked one (Coral Oaks in Palm Harbor, FL) and is on the
waiting list. It's quite nice.
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:55:32 -0800, Elizabeth Richardson wrote
(in article <rzCbj.309761$kj1.90803[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ):

- quote -

I am not predicting they will go out of business, just saying this
possibility should be considered along with other unlikely events. Back in
the late 1970's and early1980's nobody really believed Savings and Loan
Associations would go out of business.

"Don" <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C394310C02C472F0B01AD9AF[at]news.telus.net...

- quote -

You've questioned the continuity of mutual funds twice in this thread. What
form of investment vehicle do you anticipate will replace them?

Elizabeth Richardson

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:31:15 -0800, Thumper wrote
(in article <qpvsm390ua318ls5eh6alalv8prkeu0p25[at]4ax.com> ):

- quote -

I would look at a lot of "What If's" in addition to that one. What if there
is a major recession and recessions begin to get worse every 5 years? What if
all the banks fail? What if mutual funds become a thing of the past? Some of
these unlikely events actually may be more likely than having a stroke. All
are relevant to planning your finances.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:29:43 -0800, Will Trice wrote
(in article <476EC518.8030707[at]notmonitored.com> ):

- quote -

It is only an issue if either of the two beliefs prevents one from
considering all the alternatives. I think it is fair to say that people in
finance (and business generally), including financial planners, tend to be
conservative and to look to the tried and true ways of the past for guidance.
But in historical periods of rapid change this mind-set can be a
disadvantage. Probably "liberals" are more attuned to the possibility that
government sponsored health plans are on the way and to other major changes
to come, and this flexibility may be an advantage in financial decision
making. But I agree with what you say about the uncertainty of the future.

Don wrote:
- quote -

Why is the belief that one should not invest/insure with the hope that
government medical programs will expand significantly in the near future
a personal prejudice, when the opposite is not?

Every planner brings opinions at this level to the table. Consumers are
free to take advice or not, and to work with planners whose advice makes
sense on the consumers' individual level. For me, a planner who plans
based on hope rather than on rational thought strikes me as worse than
useless.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you irrational. We could very well
have a health system like Canada's sometime in the future (though I
personally doubt it for the near term). But to properly take into
account the existence of this hypothetical health system within your
financial plan, you must be able to make an educated guess as to the
magnitude and timing of the benefits you will receive, or could receive.
I don't think any reliable data exists with which to make this kind of
extrapolation. Of course, if real government programs start to make
headway, then financial course corrections may become wise. It's not
like one of these plans will happen overnight. Until then, I will plan
as if your hypothetical health system will not be available to me, and
then I'll be pleasantly surprised if it is.

-Will

william dot trice at ngc dot com

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:54:51 -0800, Will Trice wrote
(in article <476E84A3.4060302[at]notmonitored.com> ):

- quote -

No, I only suggested that less might be put into LTC insurance and
relatively more into equities. Don't cut back on savings but maybe spread it
around in different ways. I would say figure out the absolute most you can
save in a month, and then save 10 percent more than that.

Agreed that a responsible planner will consider all possibilities. Nobody can
predict exactly what is going to happen in the future. It would be foolish to
invest based on the assumption that in the future the operation of financial
markets and the choices available to an investor are always going to be same
as they are now or have been for the last fifty years. My objection is mainly
to someone who allows personal prejudices to interfere with flexibility in
decision making. If I were a young person seeking financial advice, I would
not want that advice from someone who blindly assumes that "government health
plans will never come," or that "folks will never allow taxes to increase,"
or "mutual funds are always the best long-term investment." Most especially I
would not want advice from someone whose vision is limited to one company's
offerings of mutual funds. It is an axiom that past performance does not
guarantee future results. Similar reasoning should extend also to asset
classes, political decisions, taxation matters, and so on.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:33:54 -0600, Don <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote:

- quote -

What if I have a stroke next year?
Thumper

Don wrote:

- quote -

OK, under these conditions, what advice would your hypothetical planner
give?

"You can cut back on your savings because I hope that you'll have
expanded government-funded health benefits, including long term care,
when you retire."

"Now that you're retired, you can invest more aggressively because I
hope that you won't need your cash for health care expenses due to
expanded government programs."

etc.

Perhaps our resident planners can chime in, but these don't seem like
sound strategies for an uncertain future. How uncertain? Well, how
long has the U.S. been in the medical situation you perceive? So even
if you're correct and our situation will inevitably move towards
expanded government programs, how long will it take to get to, say,
Canada's level? I would think that as part of a sound financial plan,
you would plan for the contingency that these programs will not be in
place in time for your use, even if you firmly believe they will come
about eventually.

-Will

william dot trice at ngc dot com

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:17:41 -0800, Will Trice wrote
(in article <476D7EE1.8080004[at]notmonitored.com> ):

- quote -


Your prediction might be reasonable if only Canada and perhaps two or three
other industrialized nations had national health plans while most European
nations had US type systems. But the reality is that the USA is an oddity, a
rich nation with inadequate medical care for large numbers of its citizens.
Under these conditions, an astute financial planner could be expected to be
aware that government health insurance is very likely on the way. I would say
it is inevitable. I should thinkl this possibility would have important
financial implications and would influence decision making about investments.
It should especially concern knowledgeable planners reputed to be aware of
the long term and not just what is happening in the market today or what was
good last year.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:03:19 -0800, Avrum Lapin wrote
(in article <avrum223-B25E91.19093121122007[at]news.verizon.net> ):


- quote -

I have lived in both countries, and the vast majority of Canadians here in BC
want a government plan as it is and would never vote for a US system even as
they complain about long waiting lists in Canada. I would guess that the
Americans who worry that a national health plan would lead to lousier care
are ones who already are able to pay for excellent care. People in the US
with no health insurance at all have nothing to lose.

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote
snip for brevity
- quote -

I should amend my earlier comments to note that, if some
sort of national health care reform takes place, then its
including as its main thrust a head-on, full-speed effort in
preventive medicine would give me much more hope that costs
and access (fueled by reduced demand) would improve.

Safeway grocery stores CEO Steve Burd has been leading a
movement for health care reform. By my understanding Burd is
known to be, of course, an enthusiastic capitalist and
mostly conservative. The underlying principle of his health
care movement is preventive medicine. He implemented a
preventive plan with Safeway employees, and he has the
numbers (less dollars spent on health insurance; better
overall health for employees) to prove its effect.

Wal-Mart has begun to undertake a similar effort,
emphasizing preventive medicine and giving its employees
incentives (bucks) to quit smoking, lose weight, etc. All in
the name of making a buck. But to say the least, a nice side
effect is that everyone is healthier.

Business owners coming here for advice, take note. Those
working for companies where the costs of health benefits
have been rising, urge your companies to study and implement
Safeway's model.

Don wrote:

- quote -

I would hazard that most financial planners would not give advice based
on "hopes" for the future. And hopes that the government will expand
current federal medical programs in the near future may be unfounded.
Programs such as Medicare are getting into trouble financially. Given
the American distaste for taxation (not that anyone really likes to be
taxed), paying for current levels of service, let alone additional
services, will be troublesome.

-Will

william dot trice at ngc dot com

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:05:44 -0800, Elizabeth Richardson wrote
(in article <b6ebj.303394$kj1.22983[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ):

- quote -

Agreed that prevention and healthful living are highly desirable and would
bring about great savings in the long run. But, still, the crux of the matter
is the lack of health care for disadvantaged people (something like 40
million people or 14% of the US population with no health care at all). And a
much larger percentage who are one serious illness away from loss of health
care and bankrluptcy. What's more, some of the same factors that are
responsible for poor insurance coverage also make it difficult for
impoverished people to get enough healthy food and exercise. If you live in
substandard housing or in the slums it is hard to go jogging after a day's
work, or do push-ups in a small living room with all the kids and cats
running around. In some places it is hard to find good food at the corner
rip-off market.

"Don" <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C3929F5A02664D5DB01AD9AF[at]news.telus.net...
- quote -

65% of all deaths in the US (maybe worldwide, but I don't know that
statistic) due to diabetes, heart disease and stroke are preventable. Living
with diabetes is a very expensive. It would be far wiser, including
financially wiser, to do the things that prevent it rather than doing the
things to treat it. And yes, that includes limiting junk food, but it also
includes exercise. One of the front-running presidential hopefuls talks
about revamping our health care system to that of preventive care rather
than disease care. He is not being laughed off the podium.

Elizabeth Richardson

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:27:18 -0800, Elizabeth Richardson wrote
(in article <zBabj.302474$kj1.278537[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ):

- quote -

Hmmm. I suppose the people and their elected officials in Canada and those
European countries never figured that out. Maybe they are taking the wrong
approach entirely. Maybe they should dismantle their government sponsored
health plans and privatize everything again and then try to convince all the
people to do better financial planning and give up junk food. I wonder how
many people in those countries would listen to that kind of advice and keep a
straight face.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:49:16 -0600, "Elizabeth Richardson"
<erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote:

- quote -


Correct. In my case my wife is 17 years younger than I and I don't
wish to use all our assets on nursing home care. One important thing
to me is though, the possibility of avoiding a nursing home altogether
using the home health care provisions of my plan.
Thumper

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:52:49 -0600, "Elle"
<honda.lioness[at]nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

- quote -

This is one of the major reasons for a shortage of doctors. Until
around the early eighties you could look over your doctor's shoulder
and see a whole set of US ARMY medical books. Most doctors received
their medical training through the US. Army in exchange for some
service. This has all changed now and has been "privatized."
Thumper


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Posters to this thread should relate comments to general financial planning.

"Don" <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C391BF980231DBCCB01AD9AF[at]news.telus.net...

- quote -

One of the main reasons seniors become impoverished is because they didn't
do sufficient financial planning when they were younger. As to your health
reasoning, many younger people in the US have a difficult time today with
medical costs because they do not try to live a healthy life. This has a
ripple effect.

Elizabeth Richardson