Talk:Term life insurance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
