Smart Money magazine published an article several years ago that argued against buying LTC in your 50s or earlier because the standard 5% inflation protection coverage would not keep up with the average 7% increase in nursing home costs. Basically, the earlier you buy the policy, the larger the gap that you will have between what your policy pays out and what the actual costs will be. Here are a couple of quotes from the article: "The 5% inflation adjustment is the industry standard, adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in the early 1990s. If the insurance industry were to adopt the 7% inflation figure that some predict, 'the cost would be prohibitive', says Tom Foley, an actuary with the North Dakota Insurance Department who chairs the NAIC's long-term care rate stabilization woking group." "The average age at which people buy long-term-care insurance is now about 65, and given the effects of inflation on your coverage, not to mention the uncertainty of health care costs and public policy 20 or 30 years from now, why buy it earlier than that? 'If there's a liklihood you might develop a health problem that makes long-term-care insurance expensive, you might want to buy it sooner', says Chuck Mondin of the United Seniors Health Cooperative, a nonprofit advocacy group. Otherwise, wait."

chisue, insurance companies don't make money strictly off policy premiums. AIG's current headline news is a perfect example of this. When I worked at CIGNA (formerly Connecticut General, then they bought INA and changed their name), each of their 5 separate divisions was given an annual profit margin target to hit. This was called a "zero margin plus xx%". Note this was not a sales number, it was a "quick and dirty" percentage of how much revenue minus division expenses they made annually. My boss (one of the regional VPs with a shot at the division presidency) got interested in exactly where this target number came from. He learned that what CIGNA called "zero margin" was actually a base 15% profit margin. CIGNA could earn 15% off its money, through investments and such things as real estate development (for instance they bankrolled Foster City, a landfill development in the SF Bay Area that was considered risky at the time, but is now a desirable mixed-use suburb, selling it after a few years for a hefty profit), without ever writing another insurance policy. Therefore, their divisions had to earn OVER that 15% profit margin, to be worth expending corporate funds for. This is why insurance companies go in and out of market niches - they tend to keep a fairly conservative eye on what their profit margins are on each line of business. When people are discussing the stock market, the majority of money in it is institutional. Insurance companies are a very large part of that. They are even better than banks at leveraging their money. We used to make jokes about actuaries, but insurance companies realistically suvive on the number-crunching abilities of their actuaries. Like developers in a software company, they are what actually drives the financial corporate engines.

Depending upon your life situation (if you need insurance at all, some don't), a person should have anywhere from 4 to 7x their annual gross income in total life insurance. Life insurance, BTW, passes tax free to the beneficiary although it is counted in the total value of your estate for federal estate tax purposes. Wealthy people get around this by setting up ILITs (Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts). As an Exec Asst for salespeople, I worked at CIGNA insurance for 13 years. I also worked at an independent CFP's office for 18 months, who was both a broker and insurance agent. I would recommend level term insurance - in fact, the CFP I worked for refused to recommend anything else unless the policy was for tax planning purposes, in which case he recommended Universal Life. Annual renewable insurance costs much more over the long run. Mortality statistics have improved so much that term insurance is quite simply, the most economical choice for just about everyone. And level term insurance means your premium will never change, regardless of your health situation, for the entire period it is in force. Insurance companies make a lot of money off whole life and even universal life policies. With the decline in the stock market, the advantages of universal life have suffered compared to straight term insurance. Never underestimate what long-term inflation does to cash values. It hasn't been that long since people thought $50K or $100K was a lot of life insurance - but these days, $100K buys very little if your family is trying to live off of it for the next 15 years, or trying to send two kids to college and grad school. Pick the longest term that takes you to retirement age. Most people GENERALLY do not need large amounts of insurance after they retire, but YMMV. Disability insurance, if you are not covered at work, is extremely useful up until the time you retire. But the underwriting standards are extremely strict right now, unlike life insurance underwriting. It is virtually impossible to get a policy for more than 60% of your last two years' income (verified by copies of your tax returns) even if you are in good health. In contrast, I am a standard risk, NOT preferred. I have $750K of life insurance for less than $80/mo that was purchased a few years ago when I was over 50. One is a 15-yr level term, and the other is a 20-yr level term. I have them for estate planning purposes. If I were to try to purchase whole life or universal life in that amount, the cost would be astronomical.

I don't have an answer for you, but my husband gave up smoking at age 55 so that in 3 years time our premiums could come down. We are almost there.