Phyllis Shelton Responds to January 13-14, 2007 Wall St. Journal

I've helped WSJ reporter Jeff Opdyke on two occasions now and couldn't believe my eyes when I read his "cons" about long-term care insurance in the Personal Finance section of the weekend Wall St. Journal.  I encourage you to respond to him as well at Jeff.Opdyke@wsj.com.  Here's what he said:
 
Long-term care insurance - what it is: "Insurance that covers the costs of getting old, such as assisted-living rent or home health care."
 
The Pros: "Can help preserve assets for people too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid"
 
The Cons: "Very expensive, and you don't know if your policy today will cover the type of care you seek years from now.  Inappropriate for people who will qualify for Medicaid."
 
Here's my response:
 
Hi Jeff - I read with dismay the "cons" for long-term care insurance in your "Smart Retirement Shopping" article today.  The points about long-term care insurance being expensive and not paying for future care are two old criticisms that get brought out consistently by consumer advocates who think the government should pay for long-term care and as a researcher, I'm sure you hear them all the time.
 
On the first one, how can a couple of thousand dollars or even $3,000 a year be construed to be expensive for something that more than half of us will need and in today's dollars, would cost around $5,000 a month and is expected to triple in the next 20 years?  That's an age 65 married premium for 48 months of benefits with an unlimited 5% compound inflation factor (the best). If people buy younger, which they should, it's much less.
 
On the second one, the cash plans will pay for whatever care looks like in the future. If people had said that about health insurance back in the 1930's and 40's when it was brand new, we wouldn't have a health insurance market today because no one then knew what health care would look like in the future, either. And with long-term care insurance, anybody could need it sooner rather than later, because not one of us is immune from being hit by a drunk driver or developing a debilitating condition like ALS at a younger age. I am updating my book right now and have talked to so many younger people who are shocked that they need care in their 40s and 50s and in a couple of cases, in their 30s.
 
You and the Wall St. Journal have so much influence, Jeff, and if you scare people away from long-term care insurance, the alternative is unprecedented taxation if the baby boomers hit Medicaid - not to mention a tremendous loss of dignity and choice for the families.  
 
Please weigh the impact carefully before making those blanket statements.  Thanks for listening to my opinion.