When I was diagnosed with breast cancer nine years ago, I chose the standard-of-care treatment in the form of a modified radical mastectomy.  Then I went further and chose a “simple mastectomy” for the other breast (that is the name of the operation; but these things are not simple). 

Actually, I chose as adjuvant therapy (to prevent the return of the cancer), a medical treatment as well, an oophorectomy.  This was an old treatment backed up with medical studies, but not the standard-of-care.  What was recommended by two oncologists, was chemotherapy.

POORER NOW OR POVERTY LATER

Right now I’m deciding whether I want to become destitute if I become infirm and require "long term care," or whether I want to start a long term care (LTC) insurance policy that will make me poor now - while I’m well, and still have about 20 years or more of "life expectancy," according to the statistical tables.

That is literally the insane choice I have been forced to consider - in the name of "sensible planning for my old age." And it explains why I’ve recently been researching various LTC plans, especially those from New York Life and General Electric, two of the leaders in the area. For people in "middle age," they both require about $1,750-$3,000 a year for one person, or $3,500-$6,000 a year for a couple.

BETTER PROTECTED THAN SORRY

If you were kidnapped by "terrorists," would you have an insurance policy to cover you for the trauma and loss you suffered, including lost sex and income?

What if you came into contact with anthrax in a letter ? Your health insurance policy would probably cover you if you became physically ill, but probably not for shock, fear, and "terror" from the exposure.