I go to the eye dr. every 4 months, she dilates my eyes maybe every 3rd or 4th time. Then about once a year, I go to the eye hospital for a battery of tests--that includes dilating (4-5 doses of the drops) my eyes for flash photos of the interior of them. This has been going on for about 30 years. Reason I tell you all that, is that I probably have more experience with dilating than most. As we age, it seems, it takes longer and longer for our eyes to return to normal after dilation. A regular dilation generally affects my eyes for most of the rest of the day. When I get the 'super dilation' for the photos, yes, it can be about 24 hours before I feel truly back to normal. I'm glad you didn't get the 'puff of air' pressure test. That's usually used by optometrists (who are NOT medical dr's) and not nearly as accurate as the 'blue light' test used by opthalmologists (who are eye surgeons, and the kind of dr. you want to be seeing at this stage of life. A tip--when you've been dilated, you can actually see BETTER without your glasses than with. My dr. always reminds me that if I want to read, take the glasses off. If you're concerned, though, definitely call your eye dr. this morning and see what he/she has to say. For future reference, there are drops that reverse the dilation, but I know a lot of eye dr.s don't like to use them--I'm not sure why, though. But you might inquire next time, if you don't want to spend so long with your eyes dilated. Just a note to any who might be reading this. Since we're talking about glaucoma testing--be sure, if your dr. gives you a diagnosis of glaucoma, that you have your CORNEAL THICKNESS measured. The test used for glaucoma is ONLY effective if your cornea is of average thickness. If your cornea is thicker than usual, you'll get high readings and may be treated unnecessarily for glaucoma. Unfortunately, there are also people with thin corneas--who can have quite advanced glaucoma but get normal readings with the standard glaucoma testing being used today. So it's important to all of us to know if our corneas are normal, thicker or thinner than usual.

Hi Moni, Whole life covers one for the rest of one's life ... and, as they say, builds cash value. But the cash value relates to the lower price of insuring one while young, with the actual annual costs rising as one ages, resulting in the cash value decreasing as one gets old. One can borrow against the cash value, resulting in a cost for interest. It is my understanding that the cash value disappears when one dies: one then gets only the death benefit that was guaranteed. You can have the cash value, or the death benefit ... but not both. Term insurance covers the life insured for a specified number of years, e.g. 10 years, 20 years, etc., usually for the full face value, but I think that, though seldom used, decreasing term is available, where the payout rate diminishes as the years in that contract period go by. As one ages, the possibility of one's dying during the period of the next term increases, so the price quoted rises, very substantially as one ages. It becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to initiate any policy for a person over age 80. As Iva Mae says, in Canada "Term to 100" is available, to cover one until age 100. It may cover one beyond that, but I suspect that the coverage dies on one's 100th birthday: if it's claimed that such isn't so, I'd want it in writing. Ordinarily, over one's lifetime, a fanily's need for insurance decreases, being for a large amount when young, if there's a family, to pay off mortgage (and I don't like insurance just to cover mortgage), and provide the surviving spouse and small children with their needs until they become independent, probably including at least part of the cost of advanced education. As one ages, the need reduces, so, while the premiums for a specified amount of term insurance increases, the amount that the family needs to carry reduces, thus they can continue to pay less for term than for whole life with the difference available for investment. The idea then is that the amount of one's invested asset increases over the years, thus reducing the amount needed to support the family's needs. The goal is to have enough assets built up over the years to be able to self-finance, thus being able to do without term insurance late in life, when it becomes very expensive. Thus, we often hear the saying, "Buy term (when young) and invest the difference (between the cost of whole life that stays constant through the years and term, which increases as each term expires). ole joyful

The image and link are for a bare bones POA, given out for free by a non-profit org, intended for low income persons and senior citizens. That's great and a valuable service for those intended groups they wish to help. Reading what a form says is not the same as understanding what the law requires or permits. This form is deficient in more ways than I want to spend time to mention and is probably not suitable for use by anyone other than those with very limited income, assets and liabilities. Edit to add - The reason why some of the earlier posts shown above written by other people seem to be carrying on one-side conversations is that someone removed several of my posts. That's fine, but the danger is that many of the posts that remain contain information and explanations about powers of attorney I believe are incorrect. The removed posts I had written included my views (I'm a CPA with experience with this actually simple and straight forward topic) and explanations why I believed several comments others had made were wrong. The comments I believe wrong remain, my corrections were removed. Anyone for whom this subject may be relevant should be sure to get advice from individuals with the right qualifications to offer such advice.

As mentioned, my MIL was in a nursing home for eleven years. My grandmother was also in for quite a few years - she qualified for medicaid because she didn't have any money, not because she protected her wealth. Neither of my parents were - dad died at 62 and mother at 84 still living reasonably independently in an apartment. We would be private pay if we end up in that situation. I originally thought it might be a good idea because we have no kids to help us stay in our own home. However I'm more and more convinced it's just not a viable concept - insurance companies can't make money on it without exorbitant rates and limited coverage to the point it's just not worth it. I think I'll stick with the life insurance as a safety net if we live so long in such bad shape we need that kind of care for too long. I just don't think that's going to be the case but you never know.