Planning for the Future – An Exploration of Long Term Care Insurance

Our daughter frequently reminds us of one significant fact we should never, never, forget. When we get old and cannot take care of ourselves, it is she who will pick the home we will go into. The odds that we will need long term care are good. Forbes did a report on the costs and incidents regarding long term care, and noted that a 2005 report that provided forward-looking estimates for long-term care needs for the cohort of individuals turning 65 in 2005 estimated that 58% of men and 79% of women aged 65 and older would need long-term care at some point, and that average lengths for care were 2.2 years for men and 3.7 years for women. They also estimated that 38% of men and 63% of women will require care for one year or longer, while 11% of men and 28% of women will need care for at least 5 years.

In my family, we’re currently dealing with long term care issues. Luckily I didn’t have to deal with it for my father, who died of injuries sustained in a car accident after being hospitialized for a month, or my wife’s dad, who died on the way to the hospital after complaining he wasn’t feeling well. However, my wife’s mom is in a long term care situation, dealing with deteriorating memory and capabilities. She’s lucky that she had long term care insurance.

I understand the concept of insurance well. I’m a cybersecurity guy, and dealing with and assessing risk is my game. Insurance is just a form of dealing with risk: you transfer the cost of the risk from you to the insurance company, who accepts the risk… for a price. In that price, and the conditions, are the game.  Insurance is a bet with the insurance company. If you get really sick, you win, because they pay you out more than you paid in (and thus, you get money from other people). If you are healthy, you lose. Same thing with life insurance: if you die, you win (so to speak, because your family gets money). Art Buchwald has a great piece about this issue, and how the insurance company felt when he finally won and wanted to collect his money. You should read it.

I had dragged my feet on getting Long Term Care insurance. It is expensive, and that can slow me down. But I arranged for one of my insurance agents to speak to our Temple men’s group on the subject a few months ago. He pointed out a significant fact: When insurance companies went into the long term care market place, they misjudged it and had policies that were too generous — but were stuck because they can’t cancel a policy if the premiums are paid. So over the years they have been understanding the risk better, pricing the policies more in line with the risk, and adjusting the policies to reduce their exposure. For us consumers that means: if you wait to buy your policy, you will likely be buying a weaker policy. This got me off my duff, and I began our investigation.

This blog post summarizes what I have found. I’ll present my findings, and my conclusions. I want you to shoot holes in it — find things I didn’t think of or that I missed. By that way, I’ll get a better product, and you might even learn something that helps you. I’ll note that I didn’t just blindly take what my agent, Robert, sent me. My training in DOD acquisitions led me to try to get additional bids. I posted a call for recommendations on Facebook, which lead me to the fact that both the UCLA and CSUN Alumni association work with a company called Mercer for a long term care benefit for their members. Mercer, it turns out, is just a broker. I was on the verge of investigating that when a former camp counselor of mine, who does employee insurance plans, connected me with his insurance agent, Stan. Stan reps a different company from Robert, and got me an additional bid. Lastly, in reponse to my FB post, another fellow — Scott — chimed in. Scott is a co-owner at LTCShop.Com, a broker in Washington, who helped me look at the proposals I got and provided some additional information.  It is also very useful to read the AHIP Guide to Long Term Care. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has also published A Shopper’s Guide to Long Term Care Insurance, which is also well worth reading for background.

My investigation focused on products from two primary companies: Mass Mutual (MM) and Mutual of Omaha (MO). The number of insurers providing long-term care is steadily shrinking, and these were the two companies that got the highest ratings when I did a web search. There are other companies out there, however. If you think yours is better, let me know. However, giving the shrinking pool of providers, you want a company that will remain in the business, and that will have the needed stability. This gives our first comparison. In terms of ratings, Mass Mutual looks stronger:

Rating Agency Mass Mutual Mutual of Omaha
A. M. Best Company (Best’s Rating, 15 ratings) A++ (1) A+ (2)
Standard and Poor’s (Financial Strength, 20 ratings) AA+ (2) AA- (4)
Moody’s (Financial Strength, 21 ratings) Aa2 (3) A1 (5)
Fitch Ratings (Financial Strength, 21 ratings) AA+ (2)
Weiss (Safety Rating, 16 ratings) A- (3) B+ (4)
Comdex Ranking (Percentile in Rated Companies) 98 93


In my comparison, I attempted to compare apples to apples. I’m 57 (turn 58 in January); my wife is 60 (she turned in July). We looked at policies with comparable benefit amounts ($328,500 for MM; $325,000 for MO), with comparable benefit periods (6 years) and  comparable elimination periods (90 days) for reimbursement. Both were quoted with an inflation protection benefit (3% compound inflation protection), and waiver of premium for covered partner (meaning thus: when you are collecting, you don’t need to pay premiums, and the waiver means that you don’t have to pay premiums for your spouse as well).  Both covered home care as well.  So, for the apples to apples comparison, the “quoted” premium for both my wife and I was, after discounts, $6,272.19 for the first year from MM, and $6,604.71 for the first year from MO. For some reason, I thought there was a fixed premium period, but Robert clarified that premiums are payable for the life of the policy or until one spouse needs care. Note that premiums can be adjusted during that time. I don’t think either carrier has increased premiums in California, but MO has in other states.

I put “quoted” in quotes because of an interesting tidbit about that quote I discovered when I passed them by Scott. Both were quoted at “Preferred” rates — so you would think they are the same. They aren’t.  Each company has different underwriting classes.  Mutual of Omaha has four: (1) Preferred (15% less premium than ‘Select’); (2) Select (which is what most people get); (3) Class 1 (25% more than ‘Select’); (4) Class 2 (50% more than ‘Select’). This means that Preferred is the best, least expensive rate. Mass Mutual has three rate classes: (1) Ultra Preferred (10% less than ‘Select Preferred’); (2) Select Preferred (which is what most people get); (3) Preferred (25% more than ‘Select Preferred’). For MM, Preferred is the most expensive rate. You’ll get whatever rate class the underwriter chooses based upon your medical records regardless of what the agent quotes you.  This means that the quote from MM was the worst case, and the quotes from MO was the best case. Given that the MM amount was better than the MO amount, that makes MM look even better.

What about policy characteristics? I asked both my agents about what was unique about their policies. Most policies are very very similar, but there are a few distinguishing things.

Stan pointed out that, for MO, a Shared Care rider is available, and there is a buy up option for their inflation protection. The shared care rider allows you to draw from your spouse’s maximum care benefit when yours is exhausted, and if your spouse dies, their unused benefit is added to yours (and vice-versa). The buy-up option automatically increases the monthly benefit a set amount for inflation (but it looks like MM has something similar). Stan noted, regarding the buy-up option, that because the cost of care services will likely increase the client may elect to increase the inflation protection percentage which increase the monthly benefit and coverage maximum.

Robert pointed out that, for MM, they have unisex rates where women are not rated differently from men (although Stan counter-pointed that most LTCI carriers have gone to gender specific rates because women live longer than men and are more than likely to use their polices — and so it all depends on whom the unisex rates are based). This may effect future price increases on the MM policies.). He also pointed out that the MM policy has a home care monthly benefit rider, which changes the benefit from a daily amount to a 31-day monthly amount (every month is considered to have 31 days under this rider).  This gives you greater flexibility in arranging and paying for care.  The second is the joint spouse waiver of premium, which says that if either spouse is receiving benefits the premiums for both spouses are waived (although it looks like MO has that as well).

Stan also provided me with a comparison table of the two policies. Here are some of the relevant details. One thing you’ll see in the table is a strong distinction between monthly and daily rates. Stan pointed out that, in his opinion, monthly benefits are substantially better than daily benefits especially when receiving home care, as there may be days where the cost of care exceeds the benefit. If so, with a daily benefit, that amount will be out of pocket. Example; The clients purchases $200 per day vs. $6,000 per month. If billed for $250, on a daily benefit, $50 is out of pocket. MM, looking at the table, is primarily monthly, so the daily rider might be required, and would cost something extra:

Comparison Parameter MM Signature Care 500 MM-500-P MO MutualCare Custom Solution LTC13
Plan Description Tax Qualified Reimbursement Indemnity with Rider Tax Qualified Reimbursement with Cash Benefit Option
Daily/Monthly Maximums Daily Benefit of $50 – $400. A rider is available to change this to monthly. Monthly Benefit of $1,500 – $10,000 in $50 increments.
Elimination Period (one in a lifetime — may be accumulated over several claims) Service Days Calendar Days. Stan pointed out that this means that if service isn’t needed on a day during the period, it doesn’t count.
Inflation Protection 5% and 3% Compound available Inflation percentage: 1%-5% compound in 0.25% increments. Duration: 10, 15, 20, or Lifetime. Inflation protection option: Inflation applied to policy benefits (not to exceed 5%) on or before each anniversary date. Increase is effective on the policy anniversary following the election, with benefit increases occurring the following anniversary. Only available prior to the lesser of 20 years or age 75.
Nursing Facility Up to 100% of daily maximum. A rider is available to change this to monthly. Up to 100% of monthly maximum
Home and Community Care Up to 100% of daily maximum. A rider is available to change this to monthly. Up to 50%, 75% or 100% of monthly maximum
Assisted Living Facility Up to 100% of daily maximum.  A rider is available to change this to monthly. Up to 50%, 75% or 100% of monthly maximum
Shared Option Available Yes. Available with optional rider  on policies with a two or three year benefit period. Rider offers a third pool of money equal to the maximum benefit amount. If a covered partner dies, the shared total benefit amount will remain available. Shared pool not available with lifetime benefit. Dual waiver of premium is available under a separate rider. Upon death of one spouse, the survivor must continue to pay the rider to retain the benefit. The way it works with MassMutual is — let’s say you have a two year benefit period for each spouse — the policy will have an additional two year benefit period that can be used by either spouse. Yes. Available with optional rider. Shared Rider allows partner to access partners lifetime maximum if benefits are depleted. Coverage must be identical and applied for at the same time in order to purchase rider. There is a residual benefit until a minimum of 12 times the current maximum benefit remains. Not available with Security Benefit, Return of Premium at Death, Return of Premium at Death – Three Times Initial Maximum Monthly Benefit, and Partner Premium Allowance.
Hospice Care Up to 100% of the daily maximum.  A rider is available to change this to monthly. Up to 100% of the monthly maximum, no elimination period applies.
Home Assistance Benefit Equipment may be considered under the Alternate Plan of Care; Caregiver training is covered up to 5x the daily maximum (lifetime maximum) Equipment, Home Modification, Medical Alert System and Caregiver Training are payable under the Stay at Home Benefit which pays 2x maximum monthly benefit.
Unlicensed/Uncertified Providers Outside of California, No. All caregivers must be certified or licensed.  However, that provision is not applicable in California, because California law says that you can use anyone who is not an immediate family member. Payable under Cash Benefit provision
Homemaker Services Incidental? No, Homemaker services do not have to be received in conjunction with personal care services. No, Homemaker services do not have to be received in conjunction with personal care services.
Care Coordination Unlimited care coordination services; does not reduce lifetime benefit amount. Optional. Not required; however, some policy benefits are only available when care coordinator is used.
Waiver of Premium Begins with receiving benefits after satisfying EP Begins when benefits begin. For HC, must receive care at least 8 days per month in any continuous 30 day period.
Respite care Up to 30 days per year. Up to one month per calendar year.
Bed Reservation Up to 60 days per year, for any reason. This means that if you are in a facility and need to be hospitalized, MassMutual will pay the facility up to 60 days to hold your bed.  That can be important if you have an extended hospital stay, because otherwise the facility — which you probably researched and chose because of its quality, location, etc — will sell your bed to the next person who comes along who needs it and you will therefore have to move to a different facility upon being released from the hospital. Up to 30 days per year, for any reason.
Cash Benefit Options Optional Indemnity Benefit Rider 40% of home health care benefit up to initial maximum of $2,400 per month.
Other Features and Options Indemnity Rider: Pays daily maximum regardless of expenses incurred.

HCSB Waiver of Elimination Rider: Permits days used for HCSB to apply towards elimination period for other benefits under the policy.

HCSB Monthly Benefit Rider: Changes HCSB from daily to monthly

Enhanced Elimination Rider: 1 day of service per week = 7 days

Share Care Rider: Limited to 2 year and 3 year benefit only.

Covered Partner Waiver of Premium rider

Survivorship Rider: 10 years; claims restriction.

Restoration of Benefit rider.

Nonforfeiture rider.

Waiver of Elimination Period for Home Health Care

Nonforfeiture – Shortened Benefit period

Return of Premium – Three Times Initial Maximum Monthly Benefit

Return of Premium (less claims paid)

Return of Premium – If death occurs before age 65

Joint waiver of premium

Survivorship Benefit

Shared Care Rider.


Based on all the above: strength, premium, and policy features, I’m inclined to go with the MM policy.  The costs still causes hesitation: that’s about 1.3x of a single property tax payment. Ouch! But I guess the cost will be a lot more if we need the care, and the likelihood of that is good, given society today. Each policy appears to have some slight strengths and weaknesses over the other. It all depends on what resonates with you, where you anticipate your care being and who will be giving it. Remember, it’s all legalized gambling, and sometimes you win the bet.

One additional notes: Both of the agents I worked with were very professional, and I recommend them depending on which policy you need — you might have needed different than mine and get different quotes based on your age. The agents were Robert Smith (who reps MM, among others) and Stan Israel (who reps MO, among others). Scott Olsen of also provided information.

Update 2018-01-22: So what happened? We got turned down for medical reasons — weight, pre-existing conditions. So acceptance is not guaranteed. In the case, the best thing to do is be your own long term care insurance. Take what you would have paid in premiums and invest wisely. That’s what we’re planning to do. It also does keep the money there in case you need it for some other purpose that the policy wouldn’t cover. There are many ways to transfer risk.


Understanding Insurance and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

userpic=moneyLast Monday, while reading a Q&A piece on Obamacare over lunch, one of the comments struck me:

How do I ensure that my current employer-provided plan’s rate does not go up? And if it does, how to I get back to paying my current rate? I refuse to allow my hard-earned money go to pay for other people’s “free” coverage.

Today, while skimming an article about how some people in California are upset at Obamacare over lunch, another line jumped out at me:

“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” she said, in the report. “This increase is simply not affordable.”

Further, I’ve seen numbers of articles where people have complained that the President promised they could keep their old insurance, and that hasn’t turned out to be the case. All of these demonstrate, to me, that people do not understand how insurance works and that people do not understand what Obamacare does (demonstrating again a common complaint: Obamacare has never been explained well). So, without debating the merits or demerits of the law itself, I would like to clarify these misunderstandings.

First, there are many people out in the world who seem to view insurance as a savings account: they put money in for a catastrophic occurrence, and they get their money back if it happens. In reality, insurance is legalized gambling with really odd bets (and if you haven’t read the Art Buchwald piece in that link, read it). Insurance is a bet with the insurance company. If you get really sick, you win, because they pay you out more than you paid in (and thus, you get money from other people). If you are healthy, you lose. Same thing with life insurance: if you die, you win (so to speak, because your family gets money).

Insurance is pooled transfer of risk. Money for catastrophic events is collected by insurance companies from people that might be subject to those events; the amount they charge is based upon the risk that the event might happen (if that can be figured out). The insurance company invests the money (growing it some), and collects a percentage for their costs/profits. What’s left is paid out when events occur.

So when you object that your hard earned money is paying for other’s free coverage, remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. First, the hard earned money of others is paying for your medical coverage when it is above what you pay in premiums. If the other person is paying premiums, their coverage isn’t free. If they are receiving some level of subsidy through the ACA, then the government is supporting paying the premium — but not necessarily you personally, for it could be coming from the various surcharges built into the scheme to cover the subsidies. The ACA was designed to be self-supporting, so these surcharges should cover the subsidies / medicaid expansion.

Let’s now turn to the question about why some people are being moved to pricier polices. The answer is not because they are middle-class, per se. As with anything, there are multiple reasons.

First, the ACA mandates a certain minimal level of coverage, with some minimal level of deductables. It also mandates that certain preventative care options have no co-pays to encourage their use (saving money down the line), that children be covered on their parents policy until they are 26, and that there be no maximum payout caps. Policies that do not meet these minimums (unless they are grandfathered employer policies) have to be withdrawn, and the consumer steered towards policies that meet the minimums. As these policies do more, they cost more. It is these cases where consumers cannot keep their old insurance — in other words, you can’t keep it if it didn’t provide the minimum coverage.

Secondly, in California (and likely other states), the government didn’t want to permit insurance companies to segregate the healthier people from the new people apply for plans (remember what I said before about pooling of risk — they wanted the pool to be greater). Specifically, the state didn’t want to give insurance companies the opportunity to hold on to the healthiest patients for up to a year, keeping them out of the larger risk pool that will influence future rates.

These factors are expressed by the director of Covered California when he states: “People could have kept their cheaper, bad coverage, and those people wouldn’t have been part of the common risk pool.  We are better off all being in this together. We are transforming the individual market and making it better.”  Additionally, the higher rates are partially offset by smaller deductibles, lower limits on out-of-pocket medical expenses in the new plans, and increased no-cost preventative coverage.

Lastly, as for keeping your insurance, that is generally true if it is employer-provided (although employer-provided policies need to meet the same minimums, and some employers are opting for better deals in the individual marketplace). The discussion above is for individual policies. Note that employer-provided polices are seeing premium changes as well for a number of reasons, including the minimum coverage changes as well as the need to avoid being classified as “cadillac” plans for being too expensive.

Now, this post (and any comments with it) is not the place to discuss whether having a minimum level of coverage is right, whether there should be subsidies, or whether the approach taken to fund those subsidies is correct. Suffice it to say that any new law will have problems and require adjustments, and Congress should move past “repeal / defund” and on to keeping what is good and fixing what needs to be fixed. Comments attempting to get into the political debate may be deleted. However, if you have additional examples of people not understanding the ACA (and can post them non-pejoratively), I welcome them.


Long Term Care Insurance

userpic=moneyI’m getting older — both my wife and I are over 50. If they still published it, we’d be getting “Modern Maturity“. So a recent headline caught my eye about people in their 50s needing to think about purchasing long term care insurance before they get much older. Having seen some cases where it has been a life-saver, the notion has stuck in my head.

The problem? I know absolutely nothing about long-term care insurance. I don’t know what to look for or avoid in policies. I don’t know who the reliable carriers are, and who to avoid. I don’t know the tricks of the trade.

So, given that I’ve probably got some friends who are my age, I’m turning to you. What is your advice on long term care insurance… and what other gambling schemes (uhh) types of insurance should I be looking into as I get older?


Saturday Clearing the Links: Time, Mistresses, Insurance, and Disney

userpic=observationsIt’s Saturday and we’re about to go out for dim sum. I guess that means I should clear out the links that didn’t really form into coherent themes of three or more articles:

P.S.: I’m beginning to think about a blog post about loss of trust in the government — that is, how we’ve gone from a society that trusted in the good of the government (in the WWII and post-war years) to a society that no longer trusts the government. How did happen, and what were the turning points. If you have something you want me to think about as the subject firms up in my head, please drop me a note.

Music: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968 Soundtrack) (Orchestra): “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (Main Title) (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang & The Roses of Success)”


Why I Support the “Individual Mandate”

Way back in 1984, columnist Art Buchwald wrote a piece on the insurance industry that has always struck with me. It began as follows (you can read the whole piece here):

I’m not a betting man by nature, but I have this bookmaker. He works for the Reluctant Insurance Company of America. This is how we bet. Every month I give him a certain amount of money, and he takes a gamble that my house won’t burn down or be broken into or damaged by a falling tree. Another bet I place with him is that my car won’t hit someone in an accident, or I won’t be hit by somebody else. Still a third one is that my family will not be stricken with an illness that will require hospitalization.

Funny enough, I was never anxious to win one of those bets. I didn’t want to collect from the bookie on any of them. He seemed to feel the same way I did. So much so that if, for some reason, I forgot to send him a check for one of our bets, he would mail me a nasty letter wanting to know where the money was. He was not, he told me, in the bookmaking business for his health.

Recently, due to an illness in my family, my bookie lost one of my bets. Since this was the first time I had won, I thought he would be happy to pay off. After all, even in Las Vegas the house expects to lose once in a while.

You can guess where the piece goes from there, with the bookie refusing to pay out, and even threatening to break his legs.

Thinking about insurance as legalized gambling is very instructive. Currently, we’re in a situation where a lot of people have employer-subsidized casinos where they can gamble. These casinos pay very well, but they are open only to the employees. They are like credit unions: they know their community, and they pay very well.

Those who aren’t so lucky to have employer-subsidized casinos have a problem. Playing at the other casinos are very expensive, and some of them are quite shady. Some of them have really bad odds: they collect in lots of money, and pay out an extremely small percentage, with the rest going to the mob bosses that control the casino. Others only allow you to gamble if they know you will lose; if you have ever won before, they do not permit you to play the game because their oddsmakers tell them that if you have won once, you’re going to win again. Further, there are a group of players that only want to go into the casino when they know they will have a winning streak. When their luck is cold, they avoid the casinos. Casinos could not stay in business very long if the house regularly lost; it depends on the balance of winners to losers.

Let’s now translate the above into the affordable care act, often called “Obamacare”. One thing Obamacare does is mandate that the house pay a certain percentage to the winner, and not to the mob bosses — in other words, that a significant portion of premiums (I think 80%) must go to medial payments, not administrative costs. Obamacare also mandates that individuals who have ever “won” can continue playing — in other words, that individuals with preexisting conditions must be able to get coverage. It also mandates that the casinos must pay out when people win — in other words, that when you get sick, the insurance companies cannot retroactively drop your insurance. It also mandates that players just learning the game can come in the casino with their parents — in other words, that children who are unlikely to get sick must be covered under their parent’s policies. All off these have the potential to cost the casino money. To counter this and balance the system, Obamacare mandates that people cannot play only when they know they will win — in other words, that people must get health insurance when they are young and healthy. This is the basis of the “individual mandate”: to provide incentives for people who do not carry insurance to carry insurance, and those premiums offset the additional coverage costs.

Now, Obamacare recognizes that not all players have the same ability to gamble. For those that have the ability, they have the choice: they can regularly gamble and lose, or they can pay a fee (lower than their gambling costs) for not playing (this is the tax that the Supreme Court just ruled as legal). For those that can’t afford to play at all, the government will provide the casino and pay for them to play — this corresponds to Medicare and similar programs. For those that can barely afford to play, the government will provide subsidies to help them play — in other words, low income people can get financial support on buying insurance. Lastly, the government will maintain a list of available casinos (the “registries”) that tell people the best places for them to play; it is the states that have the option of setting up state-run casinos for those that can’t find anyway to play.

Continuing the analogy: Does the government dictate when people can win and when they lose: in other words, are there “death squads”. In the government run casinos, yes — but this is what we have today with Medicare dictating what they will cover (in other words, this isn’t new). For private-run casinos, only partially. The government does dictate some cases where the people can win — that is, coverage that must be provided. The government, with some exceptions, does not dictate when people lose (i.e., when things aren’t covered). That’s up to the private insurers  (oops, casinos). The exception: abortion, and this restriction came not from Obama but from the Conservatives in government.

So there you have it. Insurance is legalized gambling. The individual mandate is simply a way to get more people into the casino so that the casino operators can afford to let more people play and have better payouts.



Variability of Insurance

Today I had planned on doing laundry. But we’ve got a house full of teens who wanted a safe haven from the post-prom parties, and now the plumbing has backed up. So while I wait, I decided to shop auto insurance. The variability has me amazed.

As background: This year our daughter started driving. This drastically increased our policy. Her turning 16.5 took our policy from $1916 per year to $3688 per year. The transitional year was difficult to change, but this year I decided to look around. As background, she did have a chargable accident her second time out on her learners permit (under $2K in damage, just our car), and she’s been stellar ever since. Her driving has also upped the mileage on our cars this year as she went back and forth to high school; that will go away in the next policy year as she’ll be at UC Berkeley with no car. Based on that, I estimated using 2/3rd of this year’s monthly mileage.

So how varied were the quotes? Remember, our AAA number from last year was $1844 for six months. GEICO came in with an amazing $843.40 for six months (I don’t know how much that will change if Karen would be a homemaker vs. retired engineer). Esurance came in at $1,494 for six months. They also estimated some other companies–in particular, $1,333 for six months from Safeco, and $1,505 for six months from 21st Century… but it looks like they didn’t get deductable numbers right. Progressive, which advertises as saving money, came in at a whopping $2765 for six months, the bulk of that being just one car at $2189. I’ve still got to call State Farm.

For a few hour exercise, it was worth it. When I get this year’s information from AAA, I’ll call them and give them one chance–otherwise we may just switch back to GEICO (we were with them many many years ago).

Music: Till I Loved You (Barbra Streisand): Love Light