Brian Vestergaard writes: The ongoing argument that every long term care policy sold should include an automatic inflation-protection rider is tiring.
It is true that such a rider would provide a policyholder with stronger levels of coverage over the long haul and keep their policy in step with inflation. But the argument is also ridiculous, because these same agents appear to be arguing that having nothing is better than having something.
Consider another type of high-expense family event: paying for a child's college education (or for multiple children). Similar to LTC, it is likely to cost $100,000 to $200,000 or more. If those same parents are able to save $50,000, isn't that amount going to help considerably-versus saving nothing at all and having to borrow the full amount? Why is the future funding of LTC risk any different?
If I want to purchase $150,000 in protection, I might view it as supplemental to my own savings, 401(k) funds and even to my own informal care network. $150,000 certainly won't pay all the LTC bills many years ahead, but $150,000 is better than nothing-just as saving $50,000 for my child's education is better than saving nothing.
