Anyone Been Denied Life Insurance for Pre Existing Condition

BhagavadGita

I have had life insurance most of my life when I was working back in the 80's & 90's through my employer. After having a baby 17 years ago, I quit my job, so thus there went the life insurance. I should have purchased term life in my early 30's because now I can't get life insurance anywhere.

I'm turned down due to a medical condition that is not fatal unless you kill yourself. (of course there are suicide clauses where if you off yourself, it doesn't pay out). I can't get even $10,000 to help bury me and pay off my bills.

The funniest thing happened though. An off brand insurance company offered me, get this, $800.00 in life insurance for $250 a year! So if I died, next month, my son would get $550. If I die in 5 years, I will have paid $1,250 for $800 worth of insurance! WTF. What kind of offer is that?

Anyone else tried to get term life and got denied?

Is this industry only taking young healthy people now?

My "step-nothing" father who is President of an insurance agency, said they can turn you down for anything. It's their right. But they are turning down things you never remembered you had back years ago. Oh, don't get me started..

decides2dream

i've never personally been turned down.
hubby and i have just recently looked into getting insurance on our own, and have decided to just keep up with our insurance thru work for the time being. cheaper. yes, of course, it will end when our employment does and/or if we choose to stop it when we retire or sooner, and get nothing from it...but eh well. the cost for the insurance outside our jobs is just not something i am willing to spend at the moment. my biggest concern is now while we have a mortgage, that's all. anyhoo...i know i am not answering your question.... :oops:

yes, it is my understanding they can deny you for almost ANY reason as they are private companies. we had gotten a new policy on my parents when they were older, my father quite old, and also ill.....and it was CRAZY expensive. the insurance company did insure them both tho. my father died in the interim, but since the policy was on both my parents, no payout. ultimately the insurance got dropped. it was initially to protect outside assets of my parents, at the request of my mother....but yea....it was insane. insurance is a crazy business, and yes...it IS a business, all about profits, etc....b/c why else would they do so? they are not a government agency to protect citizens, they are simply private companies.


i wish you luck in your quest for coverage...but in the interim, any way you could save up some $$$ to cover the basic necessities for funeral and such? i know it won't help support your son, but if he is underage, won't social security kick in? i know i got social security payments towards my support while i was a teen simply b/c my dad was so much older/retired.... in any case, i hope you can find a solution!

know1

BhagavadGita wrote:

I have had life insurance most of my life when I was working back in the 80's & 90's through my employer. After having a baby 17 years ago, I quit my job, so thus there went the life insurance. I should have purchased term life in my early 30's because now I can't get life insurance anywhere.

I'm turned down due to a medical condition that is not fatal unless you kill yourself. (of course there are suicide clauses where if you off yourself, it doesn't pay out). I can't get even $10,000 to help bury me and pay off my bills.

The funniest thing happened though. An off brand insurance company offered me, get this, $800.00 in life insurance for $250 a year! So if I died, next month, my son would get $550. If I die in 5 years, I will have paid $1,250 for $800 worth of insurance! WTF. What kind of offer is that?

Anyone else tried to get term life and got denied?

Is this industry only taking young healthy people now?

My "step-nothing" father who is President of an insurance agency, said they can turn you down for anything. It's their right. But they are turning down things you never remembered you had back years ago. Oh, don't get me started..

I'm in the process of getting some term life insurance now, but to be honest the more I look into it and think about it, the more I think it's a scam to some degree.

As your illustration points out, it's relatively easy to self-insure yourself. Just put the amount of money you can afford into a good, longterm, growth mutual fund or retirement plan. If you die, the beneficiary gets it and it could basically serve as your life insurance.

I've always had 2x my annual salary from employers, but I've also contributed 15% of my income to my 401K, IRAs, Roths, etc. for about 10 years.

I am looking at 20 year term insurance. I think it's going to cost me about $900 per year for $500K. Now that's not bad, but if I don't die in 20 years, they get to keep it. That's $20K.

I could just contribute that money to an IRA and in less than 10 years (with the money I already have in retirement), I'd have the $500K in the bank so to speak. Furthermore, I get to keep it and earn interest on it for the rest of my life.

(That's it - I think I just talked myself out of it)

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

BhagavadGita wrote:

I have had life insurance most of my life when I was working back in the 80's & 90's through my employer. After having a baby 17 years ago, I quit my job, so thus there went the life insurance. I should have purchased term life in my early 30's because now I can't get life insurance anywhere.

I'm turned down due to a medical condition that is not fatal unless you kill yourself. (of course there are suicide clauses where if you off yourself, it doesn't pay out). I can't get even $10,000 to help bury me and pay off my bills.

The funniest thing happened though. An off brand insurance company offered me, get this, $800.00 in life insurance for $250 a year! So if I died, next month, my son would get $550. If I die in 5 years, I will have paid $1,250 for $800 worth of insurance! WTF. What kind of offer is that?

Anyone else tried to get term life and got denied?

Is this industry only taking young healthy people now?

My "step-nothing" father who is President of an insurance agency, said they can turn you down for anything. It's their right. But they are turning down things you never remembered you had back years ago. Oh, don't get me started..

I'm in the process of getting some term life insurance now, but to be honest the more I look into it and think about it, the more I think it's a scam to some degree.

As your illustration points out, it's relatively easy to self-insure yourself. Just put the amount of money you can afford into a good, longterm, growth mutual fund or retirement plan. If you die, the beneficiary gets it and it could basically serve as your life insurance.

I've always had 2x my annual salary from employers, but I've also contributed 15% of my income to my 401K, IRAs, Roths, etc. for about 10 years.

I am looking at 20 year term insurance. I think it's going to cost me about $900 per year for $500K. Now that's not bad, but if I don't die in 20 years, they get to keep it. That's $20K.

I could just contribute that money to an IRA and in less than 10 years (with the money I already have in retirement), I'd have the $500K in the bank so to speak. Furthermore, I get to keep it and earn interest on it for the rest of my life.

(That's it - I think I just talked myself out of it)

not a scam, simply...a business that knows how to make a profit.


seriously though, you are right about self-investing, to an extent. one big difference between your beneficiary inheriting your $$$ or collecting life insurance, i do believe inheritance is taxable, where life insurance is not....so that does make some difference to some people. but you bet, it's all a gamble.....you....and ofor the life insurance comapanies. the fact that they exist, are profitable, does mean.....they are making $$$, so while it's safety for most for the 'what-ifs'...overall, it's more of a money-maker for the insurers.


(tho there are ways of sheltering some of your funds from inheritance tax of course...but not all)

cincybearcat

know1 wrote:

[I am looking at 20 year term insurance. I think it's going to cost me about $900 per year for $500K. Now that's not bad, but if I don't die in 20 years, they get to keep it. That's $20K.

This made me think...after year 19 passes...do you start hoping you die so you get $ out of your investment? :twisted:

Life insurance is one of those things in life that you hope to get the least out of your investment.

know1

decides2dream wrote:

not a scam, simply...a business that knows how to make a profit.


seriously though, you are right about self-investing, to an extent. one big difference between your beneficiary inheriting your $$$ or collecting life insurance, i do believe inheritance is taxable, where life insurance is not....so that does make some difference to some people. but you bet, it's all a gamble.....you....and ofor the life insurance comapanies. the fact that they exist, are profitable, does mean.....they are making $$$, so while it's safety for most for the 'what-ifs'...overall, it's more of a money-maker for the insurers.


(tho there are ways of sheltering some of your funds from inheritance tax of course...but not all)

You're right - it's not a scam. I misspoke. But it really might not be all it's cracked up to be in terms of a financially sound idea. I think it makes the most sense for someone in their early 20s with a young family and no built-up retirement funds than it does for someone who has a couple of hundred K saved up.

blackredyellow

know1 wrote:

BhagavadGita wrote:

I have had life insurance most of my life when I was working back in the 80's & 90's through my employer. After having a baby 17 years ago, I quit my job, so thus there went the life insurance. I should have purchased term life in my early 30's because now I can't get life insurance anywhere.

I'm turned down due to a medical condition that is not fatal unless you kill yourself. (of course there are suicide clauses where if you off yourself, it doesn't pay out). I can't get even $10,000 to help bury me and pay off my bills.

The funniest thing happened though. An off brand insurance company offered me, get this, $800.00 in life insurance for $250 a year! So if I died, next month, my son would get $550. If I die in 5 years, I will have paid $1,250 for $800 worth of insurance! WTF. What kind of offer is that?

Anyone else tried to get term life and got denied?

Is this industry only taking young healthy people now?

My "step-nothing" father who is President of an insurance agency, said they can turn you down for anything. It's their right. But they are turning down things you never remembered you had back years ago. Oh, don't get me started..

I'm in the process of getting some term life insurance now, but to be honest the more I look into it and think about it, the more I think it's a scam to some degree.

As your illustration points out, it's relatively easy to self-insure yourself. Just put the amount of money you can afford into a good, longterm, growth mutual fund or retirement plan. If you die, the beneficiary gets it and it could basically serve as your life insurance.

I've always had 2x my annual salary from employers, but I've also contributed 15% of my income to my 401K, IRAs, Roths, etc. for about 10 years.

I am looking at 20 year term insurance. I think it's going to cost me about $900 per year for $500K. Now that's not bad, but if I don't die in 20 years, they get to keep it. That's $20K.

I could just contribute that money to an IRA and in less than 10 years (with the money I already have in retirement), I'd have the $500K in the bank so to speak. Furthermore, I get to keep it and earn interest on it for the rest of my life.

(That's it - I think I just talked myself out of it)

It's definitely a risk... My wife and I got 20 year term life ($250k each), but it was only about $400 a year for me and less than $300 for her.

We have a toddler, and probably another one in the next year or so, and just bought a house last years, so we wanted to protect ourselves. Even if we invested that $700k a year (in addition to other retirement investments), if something happened to either one of us or both of us, who ever was left wouldn't nearly be able to maintain the same quality of life.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

not a scam, simply...a business that knows how to make a profit.


seriously though, you are right about self-investing, to an extent. one big difference between your beneficiary inheriting your $$$ or collecting life insurance, i do believe inheritance is taxable, where life insurance is not....so that does make some difference to some people. but you bet, it's all a gamble.....you....and ofor the life insurance comapanies. the fact that they exist, are profitable, does mean.....they are making $$$, so while it's safety for most for the 'what-ifs'...overall, it's more of a money-maker for the insurers.


(tho there are ways of sheltering some of your funds from inheritance tax of course...but not all)

You're right - it's not a scam. I misspoke. But it really might not be all it's cracked up to be in terms of a financially sound idea. I think it makes the most sense for someone in their early 20s with a young family and no built-up retirement funds than it does for someone who has a couple of hundred K saved up.

No, you were right. It IS a scam. Most insurance is. They will only cover people they know will never break even with them. It's like being in Vegas, the house always wins. And if they think they won't, they will kick you out. Then they will whine when the government notices and tries to do something about it by saying that "the people need us." No, they don't. And the ones that do, you refuse to give service to. The only reason they oppose a public health option is because they know their service is shit and they could never compete with a system that places coverage and outcomes before profits and bonuses. Right now, they know the only people in the field are their buddies and they all use the same practices. You shake that up, and they'll disappear. I say good riddance. Fuck the insurance industry.

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

not a scam, simply...a business that knows how to make a profit.


seriously though, you are right about self-investing, to an extent. one big difference between your beneficiary inheriting your $$$ or collecting life insurance, i do believe inheritance is taxable, where life insurance is not....so that does make some difference to some people. but you bet, it's all a gamble.....you....and ofor the life insurance comapanies. the fact that they exist, are profitable, does mean.....they are making $$$, so while it's safety for most for the 'what-ifs'...overall, it's more of a money-maker for the insurers.


(tho there are ways of sheltering some of your funds from inheritance tax of course...but not all)

You're right - it's not a scam. I misspoke. But it really might not be all it's cracked up to be in terms of a financially sound idea. I think it makes the most sense for someone in their early 20s with a young family and no built-up retirement funds than it does for someone who has a couple of hundred K saved up.

i agree whole-heartedly.
also thus why my husband and i decided to stick with our work sponsored insurance. we each have 5x our annual salaries + a bit more that our employers kick in, simply b/c we figure right now...tis cheap enough, and our biggest worry is our mortgage. when we get older, it will be paid off or very close to it, and our retirement savings, etc.....will be a lot more hefty to cover all else. but if something were to happen to either of us right NOW, yea, we'd be SOL...so like the peace of mind knowing our mortgage would be piad off and then some, so our surviving spouse doesn't have that worry. again, hopefully.....will never happen.


not too many of the average joes have a 'couple hundred k' saved up (especially outside of retirement fund plans)...so it most definitely makes sense to protect your family and home, but as you get older, and hopefully more financially secure....less and less necessary.

know1

decides2dream wrote:

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

not a scam, simply...a business that knows how to make a profit.


seriously though, you are right about self-investing, to an extent. one big difference between your beneficiary inheriting your $$$ or collecting life insurance, i do believe inheritance is taxable, where life insurance is not....so that does make some difference to some people. but you bet, it's all a gamble.....you....and ofor the life insurance comapanies. the fact that they exist, are profitable, does mean.....they are making $$$, so while it's safety for most for the 'what-ifs'...overall, it's more of a money-maker for the insurers.


(tho there are ways of sheltering some of your funds from inheritance tax of course...but not all)

You're right - it's not a scam. I misspoke. But it really might not be all it's cracked up to be in terms of a financially sound idea. I think it makes the most sense for someone in their early 20s with a young family and no built-up retirement funds than it does for someone who has a couple of hundred K saved up.

i agree whole-heartedly.
also thus why my husband and i decided to stick with our work sponsored insurance. we each have 5x our annual salaries + a bit more that our employers kick in, simply b/c we figure right now...tis cheap enough, and our biggest worry is our mortgage. when we get older, it will be paid off or very close to it, and our retirement savings, etc.....will be a lot more hefty to cover all else. but if something were to happen to either of us right NOW, yea, we'd be SOL...so like the peace of mind knowing our mortgage would be piad off and then some, so our surviving spouse doesn't have that worry. again, hopefully.....will never happen.


not too many of the average joes have a 'couple hundred k' saved up (especially outside of retirement fund plans)...so it most definitely makes sense to protect your family and home, but as you get older, and hopefully more financially secure....less and less necessary.

I'm pretty much an average joe. All of that money is in retirement funds because I chose to contribute 15% of my salary from day one of the first real job I had out of college. I've had about 14 years of that now and it's grown to that much with contributions and interest. That's why I'm wondering if I need life insurance at this point.

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

i agree whole-heartedly.
also thus why my husband and i decided to stick with our work sponsored insurance. we each have 5x our annual salaries + a bit more that our employers kick in, simply b/c we figure right now...tis cheap enough, and our biggest worry is our mortgage. when we get older, it will be paid off or very close to it, and our retirement savings, etc.....will be a lot more hefty to cover all else. but if something were to happen to either of us right NOW, yea, we'd be SOL...so like the peace of mind knowing our mortgage would be piad off and then some, so our surviving spouse doesn't have that worry. again, hopefully.....will never happen.


not too many of the average joes have a 'couple hundred k' saved up (especially outside of retirement fund plans)...so it most definitely makes sense to protect your family and home, but as you get older, and hopefully more financially secure....less and less necessary.

I'm pretty much an average joe. All of that money is in retirement funds because I chose to contribute 15% of my salary from day one of the first real job I had out of college. I've had about 14 years of that now and it's grown to that much with contributions and interest. That's why I'm wondering if I need life insurance at this point.

what did i say, the average joe doesn't have it OUTSIDE of retirement funds. if you die, i am pretty sure while your beneficiaries will inherit your retirement funds, i don't think they can actually USe them, until they retire? i may of course be mistaken, but again....i do think that holds true. beyond that, they will be hit with hefty inheritance taxes if they can, and do, touch such funds before retirement. thus why, life insurance Is a wise choice for the average joe wanting to protect their young family and/or home especially since it it is not taxable. that's all. i contribute 15% as well, as does my husband.....but again, this is not accessible cash, insurance, even funds...but in specific 401k, IRA and roth IRA.



*most people want to pay off all their debts AND leave enough funds to cover or at least assist with their children's lives, educations, etc....a couple hundred k won't cover ALL of that for most families. thus why many turn to insurance to cover what they can't out of pocket.

btw - aren;t you the first to say that the average joe is up to his/her eyeballs in credit card debt? so no, you are not the average joe.
just sayin'...the average family, life insurance IS a wise idea, more than likely.
(and no, i don't work in insurance! :P)

cincybearcat

I don't know about "the average joe"...but for a family with one income earner I would think Life insurance is more important then a family with 2 income earners.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

I don't know about "the average joe"...but for a family with one income earner I would think Life insurance is more important then a family with 2 income earners.

agreed. term life insurance is designed to protect the income of a breadwinner so that in case of the breadwinner's death the family or beneficiaries would be able to live. if that income is not protected and the bread winner dies, it is devestating because there is no more income. a family could have a great savings plan, be paying down debt, and saving for kids college, but if the breadwinner dies and that income stops it would be a devestating thing for that family. without that income they could not save for retirement, save for college, or pay off debt. at some point, as you get older assets will increase and liabilities will decrease so that life insurance will not be as important and eventually the family will be self insured. that is the plan or theory anyway...

SweetAndLow

imo, life insurance only is a scam if you get anything but term, and you buy it when you don't need it (you have no dependents, or you have a spouse who could live comfortably without your income).

that said, if you're a parent with young ones and you don't have inheritance/family help, it is my firm belief you are a moron for not buying a policy.

To the guy who says, "it's a scam, I'll just invest enough for myself to leave behind for my family" - ... so, what if you die off in the next 2, 3, 4 years unexpectedly. Then what? Is what you have saved now enough to help raise a 3-year-old to the age of 18? is there enough saved right now to not only do that, but ensure there's money there to account for college/post high school training costs to help your spouse, who might now have to rely on one income and/or some combo of withdrawing early on your investments?

Further, when you consider the average savings rate in the US one or two years ago was like NEGATIVE 3 percent and the average person in this country has credit card debt of like $9,000. ... Many folks don't even have a couple hundred thousand saved by the time they're 40-45 years old. Sad, but true.

soulsinging

SweetAndLow wrote:

imo, life insurance only is a scam if you get anything but term, and you buy it when you don't need it (you have no dependents, or you have a spouse who could live comfortably without your income).

that said, if you're a parent with young ones and you don't have inheritance/family help, it is my firm belief you are a moron for not buying a policy.

To the guy who says, "it's a scam, I'll just invest enough for myself to leave behind for my family" - ... so, what if you die off in the next 2, 3, 4 years unexpectedly. Then what? Is what you have saved now enough to help raise a 3-year-old to the age of 18? is there enough saved right now to not only do that, but ensure there's money there to account for college/post high school training costs to help your spouse, who might now have to rely on one income and/or some combo of withdrawing early on your investments?

I'm pretty sure the guy that said that has no kids.

SweetAndLow

The person I was referring to (second poster in the thread), never said if he has kids or not. ... And so my statement was meant as more of a rhetorical question.

SweetAndLow

The person I was referring to (second poster in the thread), never said if he has kids or not. ... And so my statement was meant as more of a rhetorical question.

soulsinging

SweetAndLow wrote:

The person I was referring to (second poster in the thread), never said if he has kids or not. ... And so my statement was meant as more of a rhetorical question.

fair enough. just seemed like you were coming down kinda hard on them. the second poster is not who i was thinking of anyway... but im pretty sure she (poster you referred to) doesn't have kids either.

i've got no answers to your rhetorical. just one of many more reasons i dont want kids

know1

No kids here.

But I do believe that my retirement funds can be used immediately by the beneficiary upon my death.

There is enough in that to pay off all of our debt - which is only the house - and still leave my wife - who does work - another $150,000+

So do I need life insurance? I'm really not sure here and since I haven't written the check for it yet I'm starting to wonder.

JOEJOEJOE

Some insurance companies require that you get medical exams before they will write a term policy.....this ensures that they will charge the proper premiums. It may not seem equitable, but it does make business sense.

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

No kids here.

But I do believe that my retirement funds can be used immediately by the beneficiary upon my death.

There is enough in that to pay off all of our debt - which is only the house - and still leave my wife - who does work - another $150,000+

So do I need life insurance? I'm really not sure here and since I haven't written the check for it yet I'm starting to wonder.

i think you answered your own question. if indeed she can use the funds immediately upon your death AND the inheritance fees and/or penalties don't cut too much out, then yes....looks like you don't "need" it.


i guess looking at it that way, we don't "need" life insurance either. however, again, given the realitive cheapness of cost for life insurance up until the age of about 50, thru work, it seems a very small price to pay in my mind for the 'what-if' thought....and that yes, this way i or my husband, whoever is the surviving spouse, gets everything paid off, a bigger CASH cushion right now to afford living AND still has both our retirement savings, intact. i guess it's all your own priorities.


and....

SweetAndLow wrote:

imo, life insurance only is a scam if you get anything but term, and you buy it when you don't need it (you have no dependents, or you have a spouse who could live comfortably without your income).

that said, if you're a parent with young ones and you don't have inheritance/family help, it is my firm belief you are a moron for not buying a policy.

To the guy who says, "it's a scam, I'll just invest enough for myself to leave behind for my family" - ... so, what if you die off in the next 2, 3, 4 years unexpectedly. Then what? Is what you have saved now enough to help raise a 3-year-old to the age of 18? is there enough saved right now to not only do that, but ensure there's money there to account for college/post high school training costs to help your spouse, who might now have to rely on one income and/or some combo of withdrawing early on your investments?

Further, when you consider the average savings rate in the US one or two years ago was like NEGATIVE 3 percent and the average person in this country has credit card debt of like $9,000. ... Many folks don't even have a couple hundred thousand saved by the time they're 40-45 years old. Sad, but true.

exactly.
even as part of a two-income household, sans kids.....neither my husband nor i could truly 'afford' our home/lifestyle, singly. so it absolutely makes sense to leave enough $$$ to pay off all financial burdens AND sure, leave a little extra to help along financially. for those with kids, i think it utterly CRAZY not to for all the reasons you state....but hey, we all have to make our own decisions.

SweetAndLow

Know1:

To answer your questions, yeah, your spouse can get access to your retirement accounts, but at a steep cost (taxes and penalties) depending on the type of account and the terms set for it.

It would behoove you to call a retirement/financial advisor and/or an insurance agent, and Google/look up on the Internet about insurance. Zanderins.com, which Dave Ramsey strongly supports, provides some great information for free. He's a trustworthy financial guru. At that site, click on 'term life' at the top, and at the left are a FAQ, insurance calculator and other helpful insurance info.

I used that site to direct me to the policies I wound up buying, but by pitching it to you I am in no way suggesting it is the best one to use. There's tons of them out there. I just mention this one because Zander is reputable.

Hope this helps. Ain't trying to be an ass. I know I come off as such with my writing style from time to time. ...

gimmesometruth27

yes. avoid whole life insurance with a cash value policy at all costs. any financial advisor worth anything will tell you that term is the way to go. "buy term and invest the rest". that whole life stuff is garbage. with the whole life/cash value policy there is a bank account attached to it so you can generate some cash value over time that is supposed to save for retirement. there are so many ways to screw the policy holder in these policies.

for example: a man buys a 100,000 whole life policy (100 k is face value of policy) with a 25,000 cash value attached to it. the cash value is what is supposed to accumulate over the course of the policy holders life. one would assume that when the policyholder dies he will get the full 100k plus the 25k cash value on top of that. this is NEVER the case because of there are four strange rules that apply to the cash value accounts in these policies. these rules are how whole life cash value screws you.

rule #1: for the first 2-5 years your cash account accumulates $0 of cash value...no money in the account for the first 2-5 years. you will be paying premiums but that money that is to go into that account is paid in commissions to brokers or agents, or fees to the bank or insurer. the policy will have a breakdown from year to year with a projection of how much cash value will accumulate.

rule #2: cash value accumulates at 2%-4% interest. this will be stated right there in black and white inside the policy. why invest in this when you can invest in a cd or an ira that can net you 8-10% interest every year?

rule #3: if you need access to this cash value you BORROW your OWN money from the bank with an interest rate of 6-8%. this is stated right in the policy. say you need to get 10,000 for a new roof for your house and you try to access the $20k you have saved in this policy. instead of YOU giving the bank a withdrawl slip, the BANK gives you a loan application and you will have to pay it back at potentially twice the interest that it would be accumulating inside that account. whould anyone ever pay to borrow their own money?

rule #4: if you die your beneficiary loses your cash value. in these policies there is usually 2 options, option a and option b. typically option a says when you die the beneficiary will get the face value and the cash value. option b says your beneficiary will get "the greater of the face value or the cash value" so if you have 100k face value and 50k in cash value you will get the face value and lose the cash value....the bank will keep that. option b is the most common option. it is chosen by the agent without the policy holder's knowledge. the agent gets bigger commission because they are saving the insurance company money in the long run by preventing you to get your cash value. if you don't believe me read your policy. i have only seen a handfull of policies where the agent chose option a. must have been a real stand up guy, or a new guy that has not become greedy.

i have seen hundreds of policies exactly like this. what is worse, is in some whole life policies you will pay the same premium for your whole life, but as you age your cost of insurability increases to the point where your cost of insurance exceeds your premium you are paying. so eventually what makes up that difference? your cash value account pays for it. the insurance company takes it right out of your savings, so if you live long enough that cash value account will eat itself. pretty shitty, eh?

i would buy term and invest the rest. term is dirt cheep and hopefully by the time the term is up you can renew it if need be and it will still be cheeper than that whole life garbage.

well that is my rant. sorry if i offended anybody, but i feel really strongly opposed to whole life insurance.

BhagavadGita

People on disability do not invest money into anything but pharmy companies and doctors bills. :evil:

SweetAndLow

BhagavadGita,

So we should let someone on disability go homeless, then?

What is our moral obligation?

Know what pharma's No. 1 obligation is, by law?
Make a profit.

TriumphantAngel

know1 wrote:

I'm in the process of getting some term life insurance now, but to be honest the more I look into it and think about it, the more I think it's a scam to some degree.

As your illustration points out, it's relatively easy to self-insure yourself. Just put the amount of money you can afford into a good, longterm, growth mutual fund or retirement plan. If you die, the beneficiary gets it and it could basically serve as your life insurance.

that sounds good in theory, and i hear what you are saying, but it wouldn't be much good if you died after only contributing for a short time.

i also think it's just as important to take out term life cover for your partner (even if they are not the main income earner), if there are children involved. it would be impossible to maintain the lifestyle you are used to without it. how would you ever meet the extra costs involved with child care, housekeeping etc without it eating into your income. you wouldn't.

catefrances

insurance is a form of gambling. you pay out all this money in hopes that when it comes time to collect you dont get shafted. no thanks.

TriumphantAngel

catefrances wrote:

insurance is a form of gambling. you pay out all this money in hopes that when it comes time to collect you dont get shafted. no thanks.

for whole of life cover i agree.

term cover is a little different because it pays you the amount you are insured for, so you know what you are getting when you take it out. if you die you collect. if you don't die you can't cash it in, so i guess the attraction there would be that premiums would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more affordable.

anyways, death is a natural part of life. rejoice for those around you who transform into the force!

catefrances

TriumphantAngel wrote:

catefrances wrote:

insurance is a form of gambling. you pay out all this money in hopes that when it comes time to collect you dont get shafted. no thanks.

for whole of life cover i agree.

term cover is a little different because it pays you the amount you are insured for, so you know what you are getting when you take it out. if you die you collect. if you don't die you can't cash it in, so i guess the attraction there would be that premiums would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more affordable.

anyways, death is a natural part of life. rejoice for those around you who transform into the force!

and in the mean while the insurance companies get fat. once again i say no thanks. i wont be playing that game.

TriumphantAngel

catefrances wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

catefrances wrote:

insurance is a form of gambling. you pay out all this money in hopes that when it comes time to collect you dont get shafted. no thanks.

for whole of life cover i agree.

term cover is a little different because it pays you the amount you are insured for, so you know what you are getting when you take it out. if you die you collect. if you don't die you can't cash it in, so i guess the attraction there would be that premiums would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more affordable.

anyways, death is a natural part of life. rejoice for those around you who transform into the force!

and in the mean while the insurance companies get fat. once again i say no thanks. i wont be playing that game.

even if i could find you one that will cover you for the loss of an arm...to a snake...

catefrances

TriumphantAngel wrote:

catefrances wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

for whole of life cover i agree.

term cover is a little different because it pays you the amount you are insured for, so you know what you are getting when you take it out. if you die you collect. if you don't die you can't cash it in, so i guess the attraction there would be that premiums would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more affordable.

anyways, death is a natural part of life. rejoice for those around you who transform into the force!

and in the mean while the insurance companies get fat. once again i say no thanks. i wont be playing that game.

even if i could find you one that will cover you for the loss of an arm...to a snake...

i can live with just one arm. thanks anyway...