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.

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.

Other things being equal, many of us prefer to get life, and possibly also disability insurance, related to paying a mortgage off on our own as a separate contract. The mortgage insurance's beneficiary is the bank, not the mortgage holder, who, though paying the premium, has no flexibility in case of need. The amount of coverage decreases over the years, as it covers only the portion of the mortgage remaining unpaid, while usually for a similar cost (sometimes lower), a mortgagee can get regular term life insurance for the full amount originally owing on the mortgage ... and it usually stays at that level throughout, if they so choose. Premium rate may increase at the end of the agreed term, if it is shorter than the years that the mortgage is to run. If premium rates are comparable, if the mortgagee dies the amount of benefit making up the difference between the original amount owing and the amount remaining owing at the time (which they would likely pay to the bank to retire the mortgage) would be really helpful to the survivors. It's wise to carry disability insurance, as well, as there's a far greater possibility of long-term disability (about 4 times) than of death during one's years of employment ... lacking employment income, how does one pay mortgage should s/he become disabled? Lacking a will ... no problem ... as long as the owner of the family's assets ... remains alive. Suppose someone were to come to your house tomorrow and, reading from a clipboard, ask you what your family owns, then say that this and that was to be done with each of the various pArts of it. As you listened, you'd likely object strongly, sputteringly saying, "But ... but ... we don't want our things and money to be dealt with that way!!". That person would just be telling you what your state's rules are, that would come into effect ... ... if the owner of the assets dies without a will!! So - get the will in place ... before you die. Can't do it after!! ole joyful P.S. Confession time. I'm close to 80 ... and I don't got one, either. Stupid. My kids'd get the stuff ... but they'd get a lot less, after all of those admin. costs. And they'd get the stuff later. And the charities'd get ... nothing! o j

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