This being a fairly long thread, I'll answer a couple of points from ole joyful on behalf of the OP (but if I've gotten anything wrong, pls do correct me - I'm going on memory here, having contributed several times): >>This was term insurance/most are guaranteed renewals ... but usually at a substantially increased annual fee. >> No. This was an offer from the US Government. It is an unlimited term policy, which is unheard of from a private carrier. The premium remains the same in perpetuity, until the policyholder dies or allows the policy to lapse. >>If he could delay purchasing, until a time when people depended on him financially, he could (but - would he have?) invest the value of the premium for a few years until his need developed. >> The annual premium is a MAXIMUM of $365/yr and a minimum of $3.20/yr. I don't think there's an investment on this earth that would turn even the $365 maximum amount in a five- or ten-year period, into enough money to purchase a lifetime of premiums for a $400,000 30-yr Level Term policy on a male who is ratable for occupation and may by that time be ratable medically as well. Being ratable for occupation normally means a premium penalty from 40-150% in annual cost. The federal government is offering to insure this young man for: - The same premium a highly-rated A+ private carrier would charge to a healthy, non-smoking, "low-risk occupation" for $400K face amount - But instead of a 30-yr Level Term that would go up dramatically at age 54**, this policy remains in force and the premium remains the same, forever. ** For those that are not conversant with Level Term, the premium remains the same for the set number of years, but after that jumps so high (because you are now 10, 20, or 30 yrs older) that everybody drops the policy. So you want to have the term policy last until you have no need for it any longer. How high does it go? Well, after the Level Term period expires, it becomes an Annual Renewable Term policy, which is what ole joyful is referring to. For example, on a $250K policy I purchased on a 15-yr Level Term, I was rated standard for health, no rating for occupation. My premium is currently $600/yr. At the end of the 15 yr term, the annual premium jumps to $4,525, the year after that $4,912, then $5,360, etc. etc. Therefore, I will allow the policy to lapse at the end of the Level Term period.

Ahhhhh....deep breath. Thank you all for your wisdom and replies! I'm going to look into the companies you suggested as we still have time to change before our old coverage expires. Now that I'm calmer (!), I think I wouldn't have hit the ceiling if yesterday's email from Esurance had included a statement like: "Please note: if this vehicle was purchased within the past XX days, please confirm that the registration has been updated to reflect your ownership" or something to that effect. I simply opened the email and was blasted with the notice that they'd found something that we'd apparently hid from them, and my interpretation of that was that it was slamming our ethics. I'm not saying that very well, but you get my drift. I also find it terribly creepy that they put the full name of a stranger in our email. When we purchased the truck last week from a long-standing reputable dealer, never in any paperwork was the previous owner's name listed. Frankly, we're buying a used truck, and the previous owner's name is none of our business. So that email on top of the previous one that claimed we'd provided inaccurate information about a gap in our coverage on top of our current insurance agent's genial incompetence on several occasions (not that his incompetence had anything to do with Esurance!) was enough to send me around the bend. We have excellent credit and a clean driving record other than a deer hit at the end of 2009 (the deer hit last fall didn't count against us since no insurance was paid out) so this should be SO simple. Thank you all again. I'm off to do some internet research! You guys are the best!

The basic service provided by life insurance is to replace an income: to provide the income (or service) provided by the insured in life, throughout the period of need of the dependents. The amount that one needs depends on the financial needs which the family has: in the case of the income-provider, to provide the income that the wage earner provided. I agree that it is wise to carry coverage on a SAHM, as well ... for, as several have said, a SAHM provides several services which will need to be replaced, and usually paid for, following her death Some needs are to pay off debts, including credit card, car loan, mortgage, etc., the major priority being the rate of interest being paid relative to the rate of return that may be obtained on investing the proceeds of the insurance. The main one is usually mortgage, whether immediately or over a number of years, the choice of which to use depending largely on the expected rate of return that the survivor can develop on the fund that would have been used to pay it immediately, related to the rate being paid on the mortgage - and including tax considerations on each. Many insurance companies have sold whole life, or permanent, insurance, over the years, which covers the insured until death and builds up cash values, due to the premium being higher than is needed to cover the cost of coverage in the the early years. The concept of whole-life insurance troubles many of us, as it's quite expensive. Many recommend term insurance, which runs for a given number of years, then expires. Many carry renewable term, to ensure that at the end of that term, they will be able to buy for another term ... sometimes/usually without a new medical test being required. In those situations, as the possibility of death is low in early years, the premium rates in the early years is low, then escalates in later terms, when the possibility of death during that term increases. The total need is largest then, as there will need to be assets in place that will provide an income for the survivors to provide for their ongoing needs ... which in the case of a young family will include surviving non-income-earning spouse and the young children through the years as they grow, then at least part of their advanced education. Will the former SAHM continue to stay at home, or will she go out to earn an income? Is she equipped to obtain an income which will provide a net return, above the extra costs that will be incurred? As the children grow, in the case of Mom will she join the work-force? Will she need re-education in order to do this efficiently? As the years go by, current needs usually increase for a time, which children are growing - but as years pass, the total amount neede to meet the family's needs will decrease. Thus, many families arrange for a total amount of coverage to reduce "reducing term", as the price per unit of insurance increases as the person insured ages. Once the offspring are on their own, what will Mom's income needs be? Will she be able to earn enough to live in the manner to which she had expected/become accustomed? How capable is the survivor of managing money wisely? Will s/he be able to manage it well? Some would fritter such an unaccustomed large amount away, and be destitute within a few years. In such a case, perhaps it would be well to invest much of the proceeds of the insurance into an annuity, to provide ongoing stable income ... but the rate of payout usually depends rather heavily on the rates of interest available at the time it is set up ... which will not be altered later. That would have been much better in the early '80s, when Canada Savings Bonds (briefly) paid 19% ... but not so hot in current low-interest-rate conditions. Especially since many feel that, with the huge debts being carried in our economic environment, and the lack of private savings, and with recent disruptions in the financial markets to cope with, there is almost a certainty that interest rates will soon rise, probably substantially. I have to go, as I need to do some things ... but this will help you consider soe of the parameters involved, I hope. Good wishes as you make your plans. ole joyful P.S. One other major, major issue ... don't forget the ravages that inflation will wreak on your asset base and future costs. Many retirees who forgot to factor in that problem have lived to *regret* that overloooked situation ... which usually more strongly affects people who choose to invest their assets where their future asset (and, less so, income level) is guaranteed). You want guarantees ... there's usually costs. o j

Usually with a 20-pay whole life policy, you pay a stated premium for 20 years and then the insurance continues throughout your life, with no more payments required. If so, for how many years have you been paying on this policy? (How many more years of $715.00 per will it take to fulfill your obligation of 20 years in total to complete your end of the bargain/contract?). If you are almost totally positive that you will never remarry, a wife who isn't able to care for her own needs with no financial infusion from you, at or after marriage and your death ... ... and if you're positive that you'll never have any children that may have need of care following your death until they are grown and providing fully for themselves ... ... and are absolutely positive that, should you collect such a wife and possibly kids, whether yours or included as baggage with the marriage, you'll be in almost-perfect enough health that you'll be able to qualify for insurance at that time, at a reasonable cost, or later ... ... then maybe it'd be a useful idea to let this policy lapse, collecting whatever benefit may have accrued, thus far. But ... can you make the guarantees as suggested above? Food for thought. ole joyful