X-Message-Number: 376
From att!lsuc!canrem!ben.best Fri Jul  5 05:23:46 1991
From:  (Ben Best)
Date: 5 Jul 91 (04:33)
To: 
Subject: insurance

  I have said so several times before elsewhere (not in the net), but
I will repeat my opinion that term-to-100 life insurance policies are
superior to whole life policies. Because whole life policies have real
cash value, a spouse (or maybe others) can sue you for that cash value.
Term-to-100 does not have cash value, so does not have this
vulnerability. A term-to-100 policy for $200,000 (like I have) should
be much cheaper than $200,000 of whole life. My term-to-100 policy
pays $200,000 if I become legally dead before age 100 -- or else pays
the full $200,000 on my 100th birthday. If I actually do live to be
100, $200,000 will probably be inadequate for a suspension (because
of inflation), but I will hopefully have accumulated other property
by then. There are much better ways to invest than by buying whole
life insurance. A good universal life policy could be different.
Even then, you probably pay a premium for having the insurance company
invest, over what you would pay to invest yourself. (With whole life,
most of the return from the invested money goes to the insurance
company.)

   As Steve mentioned, buying a paid-up (eg paid-up by age 65) insurance
policy may be more expensive, but it may be a safer option. Similarly,
the waiver-of-premium feature allows you to insure your premiums if
you become disabled. (And, typically, waiver-of-premium does not apply
after age 65.)

                    -- Ben Best ()
--
Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario
NorthAmeriNet Host

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=376