Life Insurance for mid-50s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

It depends. Biglaw partner making 2 million a year at 62 if close to retirement with all of the savings done probably does not need it. Same person if they plan to work well into 60s and still have savings to do (had kids later, spouse does not work) and expenses to cover probably needs it. You cannot go by the age itself -- you need more data about where they are, what they want to do, and what big costs are out there. There will be a day when everyone does not need a life insurance policy but that day will be different for every person.

[Anonymous]

DH and I are in our early 60s, both have term life until 65 since we have a special needs adult child. Holding off on retirement until then to keep excellent health care until Medicare kicks in. Also have LTC paid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH and I are in our early 60s, both have term life until 65 since we have a special needs adult child. Holding off on retirement until then to keep excellent health care until Medicare kicks in. Also have LTC paid off.

That’s pretty standard. We got 30 year term life insurance when we were 35 and had our first kid. Additionally, you have special needs which pp did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

Depends -- are they int heir 60s already with no medical issues -- not even on BP meds? If that is the case it will be a lot cheaper. Someone like that would be expected to live more than the 20 years.

[Anonymous]

The point of life insurance is to cover costs that was ordinarily being covered by the (deceased) spouse's income.

For example, for a person in their 30's with 2 small children and a mortgage, it would cover paying off the mortage, putting the kids through college, and then some.

Why does a 60+ year old person need life insurance? Their house is probably paid off, and the kids are out of college by then. Any 401k's and IRA's would transfer to the surviving spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

+1 to this. Not sure why some people are struggling to understand this.

[Anonymous]

i got an additional 20 year term life insurance policy when i was 47 because we had just had a baby and i didn't want to solely rely on group life insurance through work. a bit expensive (i've had some health issues), but worth it in the grand scheme of things. but waiting until one 60s to decide they need significant extra life insurance seems a bit bonkers. realistically it seems like they need a budget/spending overhaul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

Wrong on all counts.

First, it was a 10-year term, not a 20-year term. As I mentioned, this is just to cover them for another 8 years or so since FIL has to work longer than original anticipated. That means the insurance company is only insuring him to age 75, which is still below average life expectancy, and therefore the premiums are not outrageous. Second, they got a $250K policy, not $500K - they just needed something small to bridge the gap. They ended up paying around $105/month, nowhere near the prices you suggested.

It's insane that DCUM thinks that getting laid off earlier than anticipated and therefore being unable to save as much as anticipated (and having to work longer) is some outlandishly improbable scenario. And spending $100/month to ensure that, if FIL were to die prematurely, MIL could still afford to take some trips with her grandkids instead of simply subsisting is frivolous or the result of having been mentally "scammed?" I feel sorry for your families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point of life insurance is to cover costs that was ordinarily being covered by the (deceased) spouse's income.

For example, for a person in their 30's with 2 small children and a mortgage, it would cover paying off the mortage, putting the kids through college, and then some.

Why does a 60+ year old person need life insurance? Their house is probably paid off, and the kids are out of college by then. Any 401k's and IRA's would transfer to the surviving spouse.

Your last paragraph is where you fall down. A 60 year old person may plan to work to 70 and is counting on that income. Maybe the house is not paid. Maybe they had kids later and still in college. Maybe there is only limited retirement. That is why we can’t say if this is right or wrong. Too many things we do not know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

Wrong on all counts.

First, it was a 10-year term, not a 20-year term. As I mentioned, this is just to cover them for another 8 years or so since FIL has to work longer than original anticipated. That means the insurance company is only insuring him to age 75, which is still below average life expectancy, and therefore the premiums are not outrageous. Second, they got a $250K policy, not $500K - they just needed something small to bridge the gap. They ended up paying around $105/month, nowhere near the prices you suggested.

It's insane that DCUM thinks that getting laid off earlier than anticipated and therefore being unable to save as much as anticipated (and having to work longer) is some outlandishly improbable scenario. And spending $100/month to ensure that, if FIL were to die prematurely, MIL could still afford to take some trips with her grandkids instead of simply subsisting is frivolous or the result of having been mentally "scammed?" I feel sorry for your families.

That is a phenomenal premium, who is your insurer as I want a new term life insurance in my 50s (new wife , new baby).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

Wrong on all counts.

First, it was a 10-year term, not a 20-year term. As I mentioned, this is just to cover them for another 8 years or so since FIL has to work longer than original anticipated. That means the insurance company is only insuring him to age 75, which is still below average life expectancy, and therefore the premiums are not outrageous. Second, they got a $250K policy, not $500K - they just needed something small to bridge the gap. They ended up paying around $105/month, nowhere near the prices you suggested.

It's insane that DCUM thinks that getting laid off earlier than anticipated and therefore being unable to save as much as anticipated (and having to work longer) is some outlandishly improbable scenario. And spending $100/month to ensure that, if FIL were to die prematurely, MIL could still afford to take some trips with her grandkids instead of simply subsisting is frivolous or the result of having been mentally "scammed?" I feel sorry for your families.

That is a phenomenal premium, who is your insurer as I want a new term life insurance in my 50s (new wife , new baby).

Not sure of the actual insurance company but they went through SelectQuote, I believe. They did say the process was a little disorganized, and SelectQuote seemed to take forever to get in touch with their doctor to obtain medical records.

Also, FIL is healthy so that rate is probably not available to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

Wrong on all counts.

First, it was a 10-year term, not a 20-year term. As I mentioned, this is just to cover them for another 8 years or so since FIL has to work longer than original anticipated. That means the insurance company is only insuring him to age 75, which is still below average life expectancy, and therefore the premiums are not outrageous. Second, they got a $250K policy, not $500K - they just needed something small to bridge the gap. They ended up paying around $105/month, nowhere near the prices you suggested.

It's insane that DCUM thinks that getting laid off earlier than anticipated and therefore being unable to save as much as anticipated (and having to work longer) is some outlandishly improbable scenario. And spending $100/month to ensure that, if FIL were to die prematurely, MIL could still afford to take some trips with her grandkids instead of simply subsisting is frivolous or the result of having been mentally "scammed?" I feel sorry for your families.

That is a phenomenal premium, who is your insurer as I want a new term life insurance in my 50s (new wife , new baby).

agree. 10 year / $250k term in your 50s for $100/mo... every single person should buy one of those. $12k to payout $250k? According to WHO, Global Health Observatory (2022), the probably of dying between the ages of 55-65 while living in the US is 9%. That means the premium should be twice that for an insurance company to break even, let alone make profit. So this policy really should be closer to $300/mo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

Wrong on all counts.

First, it was a 10-year term, not a 20-year term. As I mentioned, this is just to cover them for another 8 years or so since FIL has to work longer than original anticipated. That means the insurance company is only insuring him to age 75, which is still below average life expectancy, and therefore the premiums are not outrageous. Second, they got a $250K policy, not $500K - they just needed something small to bridge the gap. They ended up paying around $105/month, nowhere near the prices you suggested.

It's insane that DCUM thinks that getting laid off earlier than anticipated and therefore being unable to save as much as anticipated (and having to work longer) is some outlandishly improbable scenario. And spending $100/month to ensure that, if FIL were to die prematurely, MIL could still afford to take some trips with her grandkids instead of simply subsisting is frivolous or the result of having been mentally "scammed?" I feel sorry for your families.

That is a phenomenal premium, who is your insurer as I want a new term life insurance in my 50s (new wife , new baby).

Not sure of the actual insurance company but they went through SelectQuote, I believe. They did say the process was a little disorganized, and SelectQuote seemed to take forever to get in touch with their doctor to obtain medical records.

Also, FIL is healthy so that rate is probably not available to everyone.

Healthy is fine and all, but age is age. Please track down the company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.

Counterpoint: there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need. Things don't always work out the way you think they will. My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s. They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s. MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed. Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive). I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years. If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.

They were scammed.

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote. After that, it was all admin staff. They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy. If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea.

Wrong on all counts.

First, it was a 10-year term, not a 20-year term. As I mentioned, this is just to cover them for another 8 years or so since FIL has to work longer than original anticipated. That means the insurance company is only insuring him to age 75, which is still below average life expectancy, and therefore the premiums are not outrageous. Second, they got a $250K policy, not $500K - they just needed something small to bridge the gap. They ended up paying around $105/month, nowhere near the prices you suggested.

It's insane that DCUM thinks that getting laid off earlier than anticipated and therefore being unable to save as much as anticipated (and having to work longer) is some outlandishly improbable scenario. And spending $100/month to ensure that, if FIL were to die prematurely, MIL could still afford to take some trips with her grandkids instead of simply subsisting is frivolous or the result of having been mentally "scammed?" I feel sorry for your families.

That is a phenomenal premium, who is your insurer as I want a new term life insurance in my 50s (new wife , new baby).

Not sure of the actual insurance company but they went through SelectQuote, I believe. They did say the process was a little disorganized, and SelectQuote seemed to take forever to get in touch with their doctor to obtain medical records.

Also, FIL is healthy so that rate is probably not available to everyone.

Healthy is fine and all, but age is age. Please track down the company.

Again -- age not as big a concern for insurance company depending on health.