Talk:Term life insurance

Anonymous edits

Hello, you've added some things that should probably be covered, but you've also created a POV mess. Please read the neutral point of view policy. Buy term and invest the difference is a POV. Also for NPOV, Wikipedia should not give advice, like telling the consumer they should do anything. I'm strongly considering removing all the changes made and trying to discuss them all to see what should go back, but lets see if we can fix what is there now. - Taxman ^Talk 14:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

This whole page is basically flawed.

"However, on most cash value policies like Whole Life insurance, the only way to receive the cash value is to cash out the policy. The beneficiaries receive the face value of the insurance but NEVER the cash value with Whole Life policies. Financial advisers generally advise buying term life insurance and investing the difference elsewhere to those who still qualify to contribute to other tax-deferred investment growth such as IRA's or 401k's."

This is also wrong, on whole life policies, cash value builds up inside the policy, which then gets added onto the death benefit. If you had a 100,000 face amount death benefit and the cash value built up to 50,000 then the death benefit would be 150,000. People need to research before they start posting. A lot of people look to wikipedia for credible information but reading this whole page I realize that it's far from "credible" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.105.133 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Vagueness

"Insurance industry studies show that it is very unlikely that the death benefit will ever be paid on a term insurance policy. One study placed the percentage as low as 1% of policies paying a benefit."

This begs the question, "What study?" Could a source be provided please? -- Anonymous Wiki user

Guaranty of Future Insurability

One reason for a young person without a spouse or children to buy yearly renewable term is to guarantee future insurability so that the coverage is available at a reasonable price to protect dependents yet to be conceived. As people age, even young ones medical events happen e.g. high blood pressure, diabetes, HIV, physical trauma from accidents, etc. A recent quote from an american company with a Best's Superior rating offered 250,000 USD of coverage for an annual premium of 240 US dollars. This is a modest price to pay to guarantee that ones children will have a parent that is properly insured.I have used this system and found it worked very well. I am now 60 and as premiums grow ever higher I drop coverage, since I have limited need now for insurance as my children are grown up. I have recommended this strategy to them and in fact have taken out a modest amount of YRT on them with the view that I would give them the policies when they marry.Grove1 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed flag

Having just read through the article, I don't sense a POV. Do any others feel it is time the flag be removed? 2*6 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't feel it should be removed yet. I don't understand why it dicusses permant insurance and the pay out likelyhood. I would like to see that section changed to include the fact that they use the same Mortality Tables.

I also sense no POV, particularly after I've gone through the whole thing with a fine toothed comb. For that matter, I don't think the "cleanup" tag may be necessary anymore, although it still needs sources. Balancer 04:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: If there are no objections, I'll remove them both after two weeks. This article has gone a very long way from the way it was in May. Balancer 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag, I see no POV problem here in the current article, and the last claim there was one was a month ago. Problem solved. --Xyzzyplugh 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Buy term invest the difference is a POV that AL Williams came up with. I'd like to warn you that this article, being in Financial Services with MetLife, is very very flawed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.105.133 (talk • contribs)

The whole use of the term "permanent" insurance presents an inaccurate POV issue. This is used by the life insurance industry to disparage term insurance. It would be more accurate as well as neutral to use the term "cash value" insurance.

The point saying all permanent insurance will pay out eventually wrongly assumes that policy holders will hold their policy until death. A significant # of them lapse in one way or another before the death of the insured, thus they do NOT pay out. [I don't have the statistics but have seen some & they should be available from industry sources. The figure 40% sticks in my mind but not sure if that is right.]

In addition, many of the variable life products have language to the effect that even when the scheduled premiums are paid, the policy may still lapse if the cash value is not sufficient to keep it in force. That sounds even less permanent than term insurance which is at least guaranteed for the initial term & today can be guaranteed renewable to age 95! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.221.58 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I just read a CNN article refuting the argument that whole life insurance is better than term. I think this article needs both pts of view and not just of the whole life insurance is better than term. I think both have its advantages and disadvantages. It is interesting that whole life gives 80% commissions to the broker/agent where term only gives 10%. I believe that this is worth noting when folks are looking at life insurance types and their financial planner or agent is pushing one over the other. ---- anonymous Wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.245.144 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about, the commissions on term vs perm are barely relevant. If anyone knew anything about life insurance that's been posting or editing, or anything about the financial services industry this article would look totally different.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.105.133 (talk • contribs)

Study

"Insurance industry studies show that it is very unlikely that the death benefit will ever be paid on a term insurance policy. One study placed the percentage as low as 1% of policies paying a benefit."

I am also interested in finding such a study. If such an one exists, however, it is likely that other types of 'Term' insurance were included, such as Credit insurance (the last page of many loans, where you pay a few dollars each payment so that your benificiaries don't have to pay the loan if you die. They are only on small loans of very short periods, and there are so many of them that it would skew the numbers dramatically.) Without including all of those types of Term Insurance in the article (which would clutter it unnecessarily), and especially without a source, that statement should be removed. Ecawilson 13:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)