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

Trying to decide between the two. We live in Arizona with kids and dogs. Ground is being leveled out, as there were some major areas of unevenness. Installer is concerned tile may eventually crack with foundation and weather changes. Thoughts or experience with either?

A Cautionary Tale. Senior friends once bought a 'carefree' Over-55 Independent Living Home in Northern California. It was the best one-floor house they could find -- and afford -- when moving across country to be closer to family in a city an hour away. The house was perfect, and that was the sole positive. Like most of these Del Webb type developments, this one was built on raw land, part of a former almond orchard in this case. It was a golf course oriented community They don't golf. (Have I said enough?) They had nothing in common with the other residents -- who either lived for golf or were too frail to leave their homes. Yet every resident paid to maintain the course and clubhouse. Nearby towns were tiny, offering very limited resources, including *help*. The towns resented the Senior development residents, who voted down tax increases for improvements, including school referendums. Also, the 'hour' from family could easily become three hours depending on traffic. There was nothing for grandchildren to do at Grandma's, so the elders were always the ones commuting. (They also had to travel for medical needs.) Development lots were the size of postage stamps, and our friends lot was was only a few feet from the remaining orchard. This was lovely in spring, except for the giant wild rabbits that lived in it, and the spraying, but it was nasty at harvest time, with heavy equipment creating dirt and dust for weeks -- and the influx of displaced rabbits and insects. There were the usual four or five different models of smooth white homes, set a few feet apart on narrow streets. Residents came and went via their garages, and of course there were no children. There was no shade. Dead silence prevailed. When we visited, I was struck by the similarity to an over sized mausoleum. Much is often made of 'gated communities' being 'secure'. This place had a gate with a security guard...during the day..and no surrounding fence connecting to the gate. Our friends were able to move into the city after a few (long) years.