I am told never ever consider whole life insurance..It is too expensive. Always go for term insurance and don't let them sucker you into any kind of an annuity program where they tell you you will be building up a savings acct. so to speak. The insurance agent get a commission on all your transactions, They will try to sell you whole life...be firm say no.

I agree that you shouldn't get whole life insurance. It's expensive, but they push it because they make more money selling it. They also have some "blended" types of insurance now that they'll try to push, but stick to your guns and get term insurance. Whole life basically includes a savings plan, but you can do that on your own, by setting aside the difference you would pay between whole life and term insurance into some sort of better plan that you have more control over.

why would you lose his retirement benefit? i thought you got it if you were married at least ten years......? if not, and he's paying, i would get the best, most secure policy possible and to heck with the cost!

good info here unless i'm not thinking in the right direction........

Here is a link that might be useful: ss benefits for divorced spouse

I am certainly not an expert but wouldn't your ex have to have a physical exam before an insurance company would write a policy? Is he willing to do that?

Forget about the whole life, way to expensive. You have to look at the whole picture. How old is your ex and for how long will you need to protect the retirement income. The longer the term, the more expensive. Just like a mortgage. If he's 50, look at a 30 year term. There's generally price breaks with the face amount. Don't get your mind set on a particular dollar amount. If your thinking for example, 200k then make sure you get the rates for $250k. An agent is going to try and sell you universal, again more expensive but more commission. Health does play into it, many of the big companies will offer more than 3 or 4 rate classifications, that's what you want. Who will own the policy? Is he in agreement to this? You also need to talk with your accountant, depending on the state there could be taxation on the death benefit as you are no longer a spouse. Seek the assistance of a professional in this matter.

I asked a second friend for clarification, and got this:

A ten year term policy means if it is issued, there is a certain amount of coverage at a certain premium for a period of ten years. It is strickly protection. There is no cash value. If Jerry were to die during that ten years you would receive the death benefit. The problem with term is at the end of the ten years the policy could be renewed for another 10 years, but the premium would be based on his attained age (72) and the coverage would be quite expensive. Although there are other terms ( 20 & 30 years) available, 10 years is the maximum available at Jerry's age.
If you can get a "Whole Life" program the coverage stays in force as long as you pay the premium which is a benefit in this particular case, but the policy also develops cash value, which at some point can help pay the premium if you like. It sounds like Mutual of Omaha may be quoting a guaranteed issue program much like the one I quoted, which is limited to a maximum face amount such as $20,000 or $25,000. If it is, you must understand the limited benefit available the first two years the policy is in force. If the insured dies within that two year period the beneficiary will only receive the premiums paid in on the policy, plus possibly the interest. If it is not guaranteed issue the policy would have to go through underwriting and would probably be rated up based on Jerry's health issues and could be quite expensive, but it never hurts to try.
Does that help clarify it a little bit?
Earl

Now a bit more info. It is stated in my divorce degree, that I can take out a life insurance policy on him. He has to comply with a physical and all. I have to pay the premium, and the policy is mine! In fact, my girls can take it over and continue paying should I die first.

The retirement (half of the total amount he gets already) goes to a spouse, after his death. I am no longer a spouse.

Period!

Both the agent I spoke to first, and the second one I got the above answer from are very good friends of mine, are in the insurance business, and are helping me. I posted here, while I was waiting to hear the answer to my term question from Earl.

Thanks all, for your input.

Moni

"but the policy also develops cash value, which at some point can help pay the premium if you like."

Moni, be VERY careful with that clause. We had a nightmare experience with Conseco. Had a policy for $50k for DH. When we had paid that and more, opted to stop paying premiums, which was allowed under the policy. No problem there, but what happened was they took "loans" against the policy to make those premium payments WITHOUT our knowledge or consent!!! Every six months we got a bill, I would call, and be told to ignore it, blah, blah. Nothing was ever said about these periodic "loans". Then, when the crash of 08 hit, and insurance companies were folding, we discussed it with our financial guy and decided that it might be best to cash it out for the $50k and put it into CD for the time being. We were only made aware of the "loans" during correspondence and BS from them, and we wound up cashing out the remaining balance, which was reduced by then to $38k. Had DH died during any of that time, the amount paid out would have been reduced by the total amount of the "loans".

As a side note, after DH had quit smoking for a year, the premiums did not go down, as represented by our agent. Her bad on several counts, but that's another story ;-/

Never buy whole life insurance, it's a rip off. And I'm sorry but I would not listen to friends in the insurance business. They make more money from those products than they do term insurance.

But, Kath, if Jerry dies a few days after the "term", I get NOTHING for the rest of my life.

However, with whole life, I will get the amount that I paid in for. Then, I can invest that, and draw from it monthly, as if I was still getting the retirement monies during his life.

Earl makes NO money what so ever from this deal.

Moni

I had a nice (honest) MetLife agent explain the difference beyween the types of life insurance. He told me Whole Life was way too expensive, not good in my situation. (I have kidney failure and could "go" anytime.) Our house is paid off and DH has his own pension and Social Security. What I wanted was a "windfall" for my two daughters, so they could buy cars or pay off stuident loans. he told me term insurance is better in my situation.

Hi-I'll weigh in on this. My understanding is that term life begins to decrease in value at a specified time If you have term and your ex should die you will only get the amount the policy is worth at that time. You may start out with a policy which pays 50,000 at its highest value but decreases each year. If this is the case it will be worth much less in say 10 years. Whole insurance costs more but the value increases or stays the same as long as the premiums are paid. I would think that whole insurance would provide you with a more stable source of income. Good luck with your decision-its an important one. Satine

How old is your ex? First and foremost you need to look at his life expectancy. Some companies offer 40 year terms. Forget about cash value, you'll never have enough of it to pay the premiums unless you increase your premiums annually. Every year the cost of insurance increases on him and unless you factor that in you will never have the kind of cash value you would need to pay the premiums. A whole life policy is fine for a baby with a small face amount of lets say 25k but I'm assuming your talking a great deal more.
Term insurance does not decrease unless you have a decreasing term policy. Generally sold with a mortgage because the balance decreases. With term you set the death benefit amount the the duration for which you are looking for coverage. It really is simple.
Did you check into the tax ramifications in your state? That is very important as well.
Good luck.

Here, in Canada we have companies that offer term 100. The prejmium is a bit more to start with than a 10 or 20 year term but you have coverage until age 100. If I remember correctly if the person lives beyond the 100, they are still covered but no premium is collected.Is my undertanding correct?

I worked for an insurance compnay for several years and never once heard of term insurance.

Are we talking about Social Security benefits here or a private pension?

A current spouse OR FORMER SPOUSE gets half of the social security payment. Only if the couple was married for less than 10 years is the former spouse excluded.

We are talking about retirement monies I/we get right now. Half, of every retirement he has acrued.

If you read the whole story above, you know, he is 62. He is a health nut, but does have heart problems.

I know, I will get SS, but lets face it, that won't be enough to live on. Thus, I need to have something for when he is no longer living.

I would go to Suze Ormans site,she talks about this all the time,my brain(it's old) just doesn't remember what she says,but she makes a lot of sense.

suzeorman.com you can also tweet her text her etc.
Good luck
kathi

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

Which reminds me - Moni what did you finally decide to do?

Maire, I started to respond to your message above, but didn't want to keep this post up for the spammer.

I went with whole life. I need something when the other monies run out for me. There is no telling how long my ex will be around.

Moni