Talk:Term life insurance

message: 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)
replies: text: That's not true, either.  Although some types of insurance do operate on the "face amount plus cash value" principle, whole life insurance doesn't.  The insurance payout under a whole-life policy is equal to the face amount, regardless of what cash value might have been accumulated at the time of death.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous edits

message: "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)
thread_title:  Vagueness 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Study 

message: I removed a dubious tag, because there was no talk about the tag here. Gred Sixteen (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious tag