Term Life Policy for a 29 year old?

Archived From: Finance
  • Go to page :
  • 1 2345
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
So I've owned a home for about 3 years now.. Been married for just over a year to a woman I've been living with for 6 years and we're on the way to having a child. Walking around with a 2X annual pay life insurance policy given to me by my employer does not seem sufficient anymore.

My gross income is around 65K. The owed value on the house is 185K. We owe about 35K in student loans (hers). No CC debt, no car payments, nothing other than what is mentioned. She makes about 30K a year, but she will be quitting to be a stay at home mother. We have never been in any deep financial trouble at all. We have roughly a floating value of 10-15K in our emergency fund at all times. I also collect about $8K/year for a VA disability.

Any advice on what companies give good deals on term life -- What kind of term should I be looking at? Value of policy? Anticipated premium? Unfortunately, I do currently smoke.. I had quit for several years. How much will that add to the premium? Can it be adjusted later when I quit again?

Or should I take a different angle for life insurance altogether?

Thanks in advance.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
What defines a good candidate of whole life? I am curious now.

jnheinz (Oct. 27, 2012 @ 8:00p) |

A good candidate is someone who NEEDs a death benefit. An okay candidate is someone who wants a death benefit but reali... (more)

dhodson (Oct. 28, 2012 @ 8:07a) |

Just got my letter of acceptance for Term 80 with NWML.. Premier Tobacco @ $500,000, I'm 29. I can scan my list of prem... (more)

jnheinz (Nov. 06, 2012 @ 1:50p) |

  • Also categorized in:
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

Go to term4sale.com to get premium quotes (Term life). You will get an idea of the rate category you might qualify for and the premium/coverage you can get. It may be worthwhile talking to an independent agent and working with him/her.

As for coverage amount, 500k-1mil seems like a reasonable range to target, as long as you can easily afford the premium. Go with at least a 20-year level term (may be 30-year if you plan on having more kids).

We are in similar situations - same age, similar pay, married, but for me no house and no kid on the way (knock on wood).

I priced out some 20-year term-life policies and aimed for the best possible rate given for people who are very healthy. For reference, I'm 5'9", 135 lbs and I run 10-14 miles a week. Don't drink or smoke, and in general I eat very healthy. After my physical I was approved for the best-possible policy through ING (Reliastar).

Details of the policy are:

20 years coverage
$800,000 death benefit
Yearly cost: $364, or $7280 for the full 20-year term. The cost goes up slightly if you choose to pay bi-annually or monthly.

I did the legwork and checked out the reputability of ING, and they're fine, maybe A rated through AMBest. There are better companies like New York Life and whatnot, but the premiums were much higher - closer to $10-12k for the 20-year term for the same product.

YMMV when it comes to smoking. And they do run the necessary drug tests to confirm whether you smoke.

First off, quit smoking. You know it is terrible for you, right? Regarding the premium b/c you're a smoker, essentially you would get a smoker's policy today, then cancel it in 3yrs when you quit smoking and you'd get an entirely new non-smoker's policy.

Next if you weren't a smoker and in good health (what's the disability thing?), you would be able to get a 20yr fixed premium, $1mil term life policy for around $500 a year, perhaps even less (I haven't shopped in 2-3 yrs and I'm a little older than you are). You can always get a smaller policy for less money but you need to consider the cost of raising a child to 18 (around $235k per the US Dept of Ag) plus college on top of paying off your bills and the mortgage.

The $500k may be a good option considering you already have the 2x annual pay from your employer but if you are serious about allowing your wife to stay home then you need to ensure she has a nice buffer to live off of. Eventually she will have to work unless you get some ridiculous $3mil policy.

Smoking will be gone, I lost 3 grandparents to it.. so I have learned my lesson. The first time I quit smoking was when I received my letter in the mail to go back to Iraq.. I was so wound up with going back to the Army that quitting smoking was easy. The plan is to quit smoking when the new baby is born, it will be such a shock that it should make it easier. The disability is a back surgery I had to have done after coming back from Iraq. It may pop up again later in life according to the surgeon, but it will not be anything fatal. It would probably end up being a spinal fusion, which would probably just end up further increasing my disability with the VA.

Based on the advice thus far, it would be wise to shop for a life insurance policy after I quit smoking. We planned on having 2 children, the only reason we would have a 3rd is if we had 2 girls & wanted to try for a boy.

I have roughly 35K in a rollover IRA & 15K in a Roth IRA. She has $2500 in her employer's Simple IRA & I have about $4000 in a Roth IRA for her.

She will eventually go back to work when the kids are old enough to walk to school and come home on their own. We live about 2 blocks from the elementary & middle school. We may look into better careers for her though, the current profession just doesn't pay squat.

Not to continue making this thread off topic, but I know a few people that had success quitting by using the new electric cigs that deliver a jolt of nicotine. They just weaned down to a few hits a day and then quit. They swore it was easier than cutting back the smoking of normal cigs.

As a smoker, your rates will be about triple that of a non-smoker. If your health is decent, the least expensive policy is going to be with Northwestern Mutual. This has positives and negatives.

Positives: They are a very strong company.
Negatives: 1)You will have to work with one of their agents instead of someone who is independent.
2)They are expensive for non-smokers so when you can qualify as a non-smoker, you will want to get approved with another company instead of just getting that policy changed.

Do not wait to buy coverage. Waiting is very poor advice. 1)Coverage is needed now. 2)You are healthy until the day that you are not. 3)You don't want to smoke now, but you still do it.

jnheinz said:   Based on the advice thus far, it would be wise to shop for a life insurance policy after I quit smoking. We planned on having 2 children, the only reason we would have a 3rd is if we had 2 girls & wanted to try for a boy.
Look into the time period which is required after quitting for you to qualify as a nonsmoker. To get the best rates, you will need to complete a physical and they will draw blood. So you can't just quit one day then poof qualify as a nonsmoker the next.

I would go ahead and get a smoker's policy today. Then worry about quitting. Then get a new nonsmoker's policy later after whatever time period has lapsed. And you may cancel that policy after a year or two if you qualify for the next tier (assuming the only change is your premium goes down after the change).

edit: I agree with Brody. Do not wait. Get this insurance today as a nonsmoker then plan to change it in the future once/when/if you quit.


Here are nonsmoker guidelines from John Hancock -- these will vary somewhat based on the company but basically you can't qualify for the the top tier if you have smoked in the last 5 years:
Super Preferred Non-Smoker: Meets the Super Preferred criteria and has not used any form of tobacco or nicotine products within the last 5 years with the exception of the following:
Limited Cigar Use: An occasional cigar smoker may qualify for Super Preferred Non-Smoker rates if he/she smokes 12 cigars or less per year and microurinalysis is free of nicotine.
Preferred Non-Smoker: Meets the Preferred criteria and has not used any form of tobacco or nicotine products within the last 2 years with the exception of the following:
Limited Cigar Use: An occasional cigar smoker may qualify for Super Preferred Non-Smoker rates if he/she smokes 12 cigars or less per year and microurinalysis is free of nicotine.
Standard Plus Non-Smoker: No tobacco or nicotine products in the past 12 months with the exception of the following:
Limited Cigar Use: An occasional cigar smoker may qualify for Super Preferred Non-Smoker rates if he she smokes 12 cigars or less per year and microurinalysis is free of nicotine.
Standard Non-Smoker: No cigarette use within the last 12 months and either:
Does not meet all Preferred criteria or,
Uses other tobacco or nicotine products
Preferred Smoker: Meets the Preferred criteria but has used cigarettes within the last 12 months.
Standard Smoker: Does not meet the Preferred criteria and has used cigarettes within the last 12 months.

More info

OK. I will try contacting a few insurance companies to get some quotes & appointments setup. I see what you're talking about, on term4sale.com .. NW Mutual was right on the top.

Thanks so far, guys. How painful is the process? I remember I applied for a regular life insurance policy for like $500,000 through my former employer.. they dragged it out over months & months, once I realized I was quitting that employer, I stopped doing what they wanted, because the policy would be dropped anyways.

You'll generally have to take a physical. Do you have any other health issues?

Nope. I would be considered a healthy adult short of my smoking issue. No diseases or disorders. 5'9" - 170lbs. My only two medical problems ever were a inguineal (sp) hernea & a herniated disc in my back that they cut a piece out of 3 yrs ago. Zero issues since.

jnheinz said:   Nope. I would be considered a healthy adult short of my smoking issue. No diseases or disorders. 5'9" - 170lbs. My only two medical problems ever were a inguineal (sp) hernea & a herniated disc in my back that they cut a piece out of 3 yrs ago. Zero issues since.So, your service-connected disability that you mentioned earlier is related to you having had hernia and herniated disc surgeries? Brody knows this a lot better than I do, but based on the underwriting guidelines for a couple of companies that came up even as a non-smoker (for a requisite period of time) both of these would cause you to drop down to standard with a potential upgrade to preferred.

Since you were in the military, did you have SGLI? How long has it been since you've been discharged? If you are within 120 days of discharge, you do not need to submit evidence of good health and can simply convert SGLI to VGLI. If you are within 1 year and 120 days from discharge, you can still convert to VGLI but will be required to submit evidence of good health. I don't know if smoking and your hernia and herniated disc issues would cause a problem there.

By the way, does your service-connected partial disability entitle you to a free 2 year SGLI extension? You may want to check it out.

herniated disc = SCD

hernea = not related

Edit - I checked on the VA's site.. Yeah, I'm SOL on SGLI -> VGLI.. I've been out over 2 years now. Might as well forget about that.


I am anything but an authority on this, but SGLI is up to $400,000. If you still have SGLI and/or qualify for VGLI conversion, given your situation it would cost you a fraction of what you are likely to pay otherwise.

Remember that there's nothing out there that forces you to only have one life insurance policy. So, if your SGLI/VGLI coverage is insufficient, you can always supplement it, which will still be way cheaper than purchasing a regular term policy as a smoker.

Also if you're sure you will stop smoking it makes little sense to pay 20 year term smokers rates now, I'd get a 10 yr term- again if you are sure you'll stop smoking and can get a nonsmoker rate in a few years

jnheinz said:   Edit - I checked on the VA's site.. Yeah, I'm SOL on SGLI -> VGLI.. I've been out over 2 years now. Might as well forget about that.I would still double check. If your service-connected disability gave you a 2 year free SGLI extension, then perhaps you still have the option to convert to VGLI. We are talking about pretty substantial savings here, so I would double check to see if there's a way for you to get VGLI.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Also if you're sure you will stop smoking it makes little sense to pay 20 year term smokers rates now, I'd get a 10 yr term- again if you are sure you'll stop smoking and can get a nonsmoker rate in a few yearsThis obviously assumes that even if he does successfully quit smoking, there won't be another health issue that will come up that will make him uninsurable or insurable at a high table rate. It's a gamble.

This will be interesting. I was officially released from active duty on 10/1/2009. In March 2010, I was totally discharged from the Army. In late summer 2010.. I pursued the disability claim, I believe I was awarded the claim in fall of 2010. They paid back all months of disability dating back to 10/2/2009. Depending on what date they are actually using to calculate the 2 years of SGLI + 120 days.. I may be in luck. I looked at their rates, you are right. It will save probably $20/mo, easy. Like anything else with the VA, I'm sure this will be a ridiculous venture.

jnheinz said:   This will be interesting. I was officially released from active duty on 10/1/2009. In March 2010, I was totally discharged from the Army. In late summer 2010.. I pursued the disability claim, I believe I was awarded the claim in fall of 2010. They paid back all months of disability dating back to 10/2/2009. Depending on what date they are actually using to calculate the 2 years of SGLI + 120 days.. I may be in luck. I looked at their rates, you are right. It will save probably $20/mo, easy. Like anything else with the VA, I'm sure this will be a ridiculous venture.Depending on the amount of SGLI that you had and the best health category for which you can qualify on your own, you could be looking at way more than a $250/year difference.

Remember that the best smoker rates that you are seeing on term4sale don't necessarily mean that you can qualify for them. There could be health issues that you've forgotten about or things that you are not even thinking of. For instance, immediate family who had cancer or cardiovascular issues and died before they turned 60, DUI/reckless driving in the past 5 years, more than 1 major violation in the past 3 years, more than 3 minor violations in the past 3 years, history of alcohol/substance abuse, mental health issues, etc... can all easily and quickly cause you not to qualify for the rates for which you expect to qualify.

Definitely investigate VGLI right away and then, if appropriate, look into supplementing it.

geo123 said:   jnheinz said:   This will be interesting. I was officially released from active duty on 10/1/2009. In March 2010, I was totally discharged from the Army. In late summer 2010.. I pursued the disability claim, I believe I was awarded the claim in fall of 2010. They paid back all months of disability dating back to 10/2/2009. Depending on what date they are actually using to calculate the 2 years of SGLI + 120 days.. I may be in luck. I looked at their rates, you are right. It will save probably $20/mo, easy. Like anything else with the VA, I'm sure this will be a ridiculous venture.Depending on the amount of SGLI that you had and the best health category for which you can qualify on your own, you could be looking at way more than a $250/year difference.

Remember that the best smoker rates that you are seeing on term4sale don't necessarily mean that you can qualify for them. There could be health issues that you've forgotten about or things that you are not even thinking of. For instance, immediate family deaths before 60, DUI/reckless driving in the past 5 years, more than 1 major violation in the past 3 years, more than 3 minor violations in the past 3 years, history of alcohol/substrance abuse, mental health issues, etc... can all easily and quickly cause you not to qualify for the rates for which you expect to qualify.

Definitely investigate VGLI right away and then, if appropriate, look into supplementing it.


Understood. One question dangling - Can insurance companies increase my rates if depression + back injury is included in a service-connected disability? I was suffering from some depression prior to the back surgery -- Since then, I have been fine.. but there will be a paper trail showing depression.

jnheinz said:   Understood. One question dangling - Can insurance companies increase my rates if depression + back injury is included in a service-connected disability? I was suffering from some depression prior to the back surgery -- Since then, I have been fine.. but there will be a paper trail showing depression.Yes, especially if you are still taking medications. Just don't do anything stupid and stop taking medications/following up with your doctors because you are trying to improve your life insurance rates (it'd be too late for that anyway). I think that sometimes people lose sight of the fact that it's far more important to keep yourself healthy than to fool an insurance company into giving you better life insurance rates and, in the process, jeopardize your health.

Now, if you qualify for VGLI without evidence of good health, then none of these health issues matter, unless, of course, you wish to supplement the policy (and, even then, you'll still save quite a bit, as you'll need a smaller supplemental policy).

OK. I haven't seen a Dr or taken any medication in at least a year for it.

jnheinz said:    Walking around with a 2X annual pay life insurance policy given to me by my employer does not seem sufficient anymore.


How many employees in your company? Often larger companies and government jobs have additional insurance at good group rates. Do you know the cost of your current policy? If it is a small business, you could negotiate a higher insurance amount that you'd pay for.

I personally went with a return of premium term life policy. It's more expensive, (I always get red when I say things like that but whatever,) but you get all the premium you paid into it back if you stick with the policy for the entire term. If you feel that you will not be able to get a return on your money by sticking it into a savings account/investing then you should go with the return of premium because you are essentially paying the interest from a "savings account" that you can't touch until you are done with your policy.

Think of it this way, My neighbor and I both save/buy life insurance to the tune of $50/month. He invest in Vanguards indexed DOW fund and is getting a x%/year. He spends $30/month on life insurance and invest $20. I don't get any interest, but put the full $50 into my savings account and get free insurance. Who will come out on top at the end of 20 years?

I investigated return of premium several years ago and it made little financial sense

Search archive threads using title word premium and my username

so term is best from a value perspective?
i get lots of money and can get anything, but want the best value.

macosx said:   jnheinz said:    Walking around with a 2X annual pay life insurance policy given to me by my employer does not seem sufficient anymore.


How many employees in your company? Often larger companies and government jobs have additional insurance at good group rates. Do you know the cost of your current policy? If it is a small business, you could negotiate a higher insurance amount that you'd pay for.


"Good group rates" is an oxymoron. Group rates are only less expensive for people with health issues. Higher insurance amounts is not something that can be negotiated.

Table83 said:   I personally went with a return of premium term life policy. It's more expensive, (I always get red when I say things like that but whatever,) but you get all the premium you paid into it back if you stick with the policy for the entire term. If you feel that you will not be able to get a return on your money by sticking it into a savings account/investing then you should go with the return of premium because you are essentially paying the interest from a "savings account" that you can't touch until you are done with your policy.

Think of it this way, My neighbor and I both save/buy life insurance to the tune of $50/month. He invest in Vanguards indexed DOW fund and is getting a x%/year. He spends $30/month on life insurance and invest $20. I don't get any interest, but put the full $50 into my savings account and get free insurance. Who will come out on top at the end of 20 years?


I've been selling insurance for 20 years and have only sold one ROP term policy and it was against my advice. It is almost impossible for me to come up with a scenario in which it makes sense.

Table, you are making the mistake of just looking at one side of the equation. How much will the additional premium earn? From ONLY that perspective, it can make sense. The problem is that it ignores the other side of the equation which is the question, "Does it make sense to hold onto the policy for 20 years?". If for any reason, it makes sense to make a change with the policy during that time, ROP doesn't make sense. Here is a quick look at some reasons why one may not keep a policy which in hindsight will make ROP a bad deal.

1)Death of insured.
2)Death of beneficiary.
3)No need to keep insurance any longer.
4)Can't afford to keep insurance any longer.
5)Insurance need increases.
6)Insurance need decreases.
7)Insurance costs drop.
8)Health of insured improves.
Etc.

OliverQuackenbush said:   so term is best from a value perspective?
i get lots of money and can get anything, but want the best value.


Term insurance is insuring against a possibility of premature death. If that is what a person wants to insure against, term insurance is the best value.

Table83 said:   I personally went with a return of premium term life policy. It's more expensive, (I always get red when I say things like that but whatever,) but you get all the premium you paid into it back if you stick with the policy for the entire term. I don't mean to argue with you, so please don't take my response as doing so. This forum is all about optimal financial decisions, so, from that perspective, let me make a few unsolicited comments.

Would you have purchased a tax-free government bond at 2.33%/year (or whatever the rate of return happens to be on your policy) for 20-30 years (or whatever the term of your policy is) and very little, if any, liquidity or would you have directed the money elsewhere? This is exactly what the ROP policy is.

To use the numbers from this recent ROP thread, if the insurance company had sold you a regular term policy at $1,000/year for 20 years and then a CD in which you had to contribute $3,500/year at 2.33%/year for 20 years with gigantic early redemption penalties, you'd have essentially the same exact structure, as at the end of 20 years the insurance company would then pay you $20,000 in interest on your money and return the principal for the grand total of $90,000. The issue is, since $20,000 of it would be interest, it would be taxable. So, the insurance company combines the two together and, at the end of 20 years, gives back the same exact amount of money but, since the two accounts are combined, calls it a "return of principal," which now means that it's not taxable. Because the rate of return is so pathetic, it is still a really bad deal, or at least it would be for most people.

Another reason that insurance companies structure these policies as "return of principal" policies is that it is a neat marketing structure, as it suggests to people that they are getting life insurance without paying for it, which, for the reasons above, just isn't true.

macosx said:   jnheinz said:    Walking around with a 2X annual pay life insurance policy given to me by my employer does not seem sufficient anymore.


How many employees in your company? Often larger companies and government jobs have additional insurance at good group rates. Do you know the cost of your current policy? If it is a small business, you could negotiate a higher insurance amount that you'd pay for.
While what you are saying is true for the OP, who won't be able to qualify for preferred life insurance rates for a while, it just isn't true for people out there without any medical/health issues. If you can qualify for preferred/ultra-preferred rates on a fully underwritten life insurance policy, it will be way cheaper for you to go that route than to get a non-medically underwritten life insurance policy through your employer.

Like Brodyinsurance correctly mentioned above, these employer life insurance policies are only cheaper for people with medical/health issues. I couldn't quite tell whether you already knew that and were simply posting in the context of the OP's situation, in which case you are absolutely correct, so I thought I'd clarify.

geo123 said:   macosx said:   jnheinz said:    Walking around with a 2X annual pay life insurance policy given to me by my employer does not seem sufficient anymore.


How many employees in your company? Often larger companies and government jobs have additional insurance at good group rates. Do you know the cost of your current policy? If it is a small business, you could negotiate a higher insurance amount that you'd pay for.
While what you are saying is true for the OP, who won't be able to qualify for preferred life insurance rates for a while, it just isn't true for people out there without any medical/health issues. If you can qualify for preferred/ultra-preferred rates on a fully underwritten life insurance policy, it will be way cheaper for you to go that route than to get a non-medically underwritten life insurance policy through your employer.

Like Brodyinsurance correctly mentioned above, these employer life insurance policies are only cheaper for people with medical/health issues. I couldn't quite tell whether you already knew that and were simply posting in the context of the OP's situation, in which case you are absolutely correct, so I thought I'd clarify.


BrodyInsurance said:   "Good group rates" is an oxymoron. Group rates are only less expensive for people with health issues. Higher insurance amounts is not something that can be negotiated.

I think I'm being misunderstood and it's because I wasn't clear.

Employer provided insurance is different than term life in a lot of ways (i.e. no rate guarantee period), but there are some advantages to each, so it's something for OP to consider in his situation. If suitable, use it for a short while until he qualifies for an individual preferred non-smoker policy.

There's got to be some economies of scale when providing one group rates for a thousand employees vs finding 1000 individuals to insure, and some of that cost savings may be passed on as lower rates. Companies do or should shop around for competitive rates, so overall, I believe that the total cost of insuring a group vs each member of that group individually should be lower. Brodyinsurance is correct in that the higher risk in the group are likely beneficiaries, but it's not clear others actually pay more, since the employees are free to shop around or not get any additional insurance at all. Rational employees (as opposed to lazy/uninformed/unenlightened employees) would only purchase up additional insurance if it was competitive and desirable. Has employee insurance gotten to be a bad product that is companies sell to milk their lazy/uninformed/unenlightened customers? I hope not.

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/employer-sponsored-group-vs-individua...

Are average 32-year-old folks in average health or excellent health? Looks like the example here tracks group rate to 15-year term average health.

As far as negotiating, I didn't mean negotiate with the insurance company (the employer has already done that), but with OPs EMPLOYER. It would cost his company to pay for more of the insurance perk, and maybe he deserves it now, or maybe he can offer a concession. Larger companies have stricter policies, but small companies will also be focused on the cost.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Also if you're sure you will stop smoking it makes little sense to pay 20 year term smokers rates now, I'd get a 10 yr term- again if you are sure you'll stop smoking and can get a nonsmoker rate in a few years

OP, pay attention to this statement. Think of it as getting two separate policies for two distinct time periods.
Your first policy should cover now through the amount of time you think it will take you to quit smoking + time to be officially considered a non-smoker + some buffer (maybe 1 year)
Get the shortest policy possible that meets that period.

While you are getting a policy for yourself, you may want to consider getting a smaller one for your wife as well. If she dies, who will take care of the kids (daycare = $$$$)? Will you reduce your own work hours?

macosx said:   Are average 32-year-old folks in average health or excellent health?

From what I have seen, average 32 year old people are considered to be in excellent health for insurance purposes.

macosx said:   I think I'm being misunderstood and it's because I wasn't clear.

Employer provided insurance is different than term life in a lot of ways (i.e. no rate guarantee period), but there are some advantages to each, so it's something for OP to consider in his situation. If suitable, use it for a short while until he qualifies for an individual preferred non-smoker policy.
Right, I certainly agree that it's a very good option for the OP.

There's got to be some economies of scale when providing one group rates for a thousand employees vs finding 1000 individuals to insure, and some of that cost savings may be passed on as lower rates. Companies do or should shop around for competitive rates, so overall, I believe that the total cost of insuring a group vs each member of that group individually should be lower. Brodyinsurance is correct in that the higher risk in the group are likely beneficiaries, but it's not clear others actually pay more, since the employees are free to shop around or not get any additional insurance at all. Rational employees (as opposed to lazy/uninformed/unenlightened employees) would only purchase up additional insurance if it was competitive and desirable. Has employee insurance gotten to be a bad product that is companies sell to milk their lazy/uninformed/unenlightened customers? I hope not.

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/employer-sponsored-group-vs-individua...

Are average 32-year-old folks in average health or excellent health? Looks like the example here tracks group rate to 15-year term average health.
What you've posted is logical but it doesn't quite work like that in practice. If you'd like proof, take a look at the largest employer in the country, which has all the leverage in the world to negotiate the best deal with providers: the federal government. If you look at the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), and it's all online and is publically accessible, you'll see that its rates are about equivalent to what a person would get if he/she would only qualify for "standard" rates on an individually underwritten life insurance policy. From what I've seen out there, this is fairly consistent with the rates that you can get through a large employer group life insurance.

When you factor in the fact that these are non-medically underwritten guaranteed acceptance policies (at least up to the guaranteed issuance levels; if you want to exceed those, you'll need to provide evidence of good health), it's actually a very good deal, as individual guaranteed acceptance non-medically underwritten life insurance policies would otherwise cost you much, much more than that and often wouldn't even allow you to purchase as much in coverage. It is just that if you are a life insurance applicant who can qualify for preferred/ultra-preferred rates on your own through individual medically-underwritten policies, you'll do way better with those than with employer group life policies. Remember that in general, an ultra-preferred life insurance policy is about 50% the cost of the same carrier's standard insurance policy. So, an applicant who has access to an employer's group life policy (which will probably be about equivalent to the applicant receiving "standard" rates) can save about 50% if he/she can qualify as an ultra-preferred through individual underwriting.

beatme said:   macosx said:   Are average 32-year-old folks in average health or excellent health?

From what I have seen, average 32 year old people are considered to be in excellent health for insurance purposes.
If what you are saying is that an average 32-year old is less likely to have some of the health issues that a 52 year old would have, then that's true. At the same time, for life insurance premium setting purposes, the same exact health issue will ding a younger person more than an older one. For instance, if you are a Type II diabetic, for life insurance purposes it is going to ding you way more if it's an early onset diagnosis than if you receive the diagnosis in your 60's. That's because if you are younger, it has more time to do its damage.

The same is true for lots and lots of other things, so insurance companies' underwriting guidelines for a lot of conditions actually get more lenient as you age. For instance, Guardian (admittedly, it's not the best example, as its term life insurance underwriting is probably the tightest out there but the concept is exactly the same pretty much regardless of the carrier) has an official sliding scale for blood pressure, cholesterol and PSA, which gets progressively more lenient as you age.

Brodyinsurance is correct in that the higher risk in the group are likely beneficiaries, but it's not clear others actually pay more, since the employees are free to shop around or not get any additional insurance at all. Rational employees (as opposed to lazy/uninformed/unenlightened employees) would only purchase up additional insurance if it was competitive and desirable. Has employee insurance gotten to be a bad product that is companies sell to milk their lazy/uninformed/unenlightened customers? I hope not.

I don't mean to be offensive, but this is only not clear because you haven't looked at the rates. Group coverage is more expensive for a healthy person and it isn't even close.

I am 38 and I am in the best shape of anyone here. I could be one of those old grandpas on the soloflex commercials rocking out in a metal band with my big muscles I run anywhere from 2-4 miles per day and pump iron like arnold. for example i bicep curl 110lbs 15 reps 2 sets. and im just maintaining its a walk in the park i can do it hungover no sleep no food. i also eat a leafy green salad everyday with brocolli, tomato, carrot, green onion, bell pepper, and portobella mush and newmans own.
so you can imagine my dismay when the best rate i can find is $667 for petes sake. Perhaps they assume I'm rich due to my age, like instead of being the guy flipping burgers, I am the manager in the office making the cashier accused of stealing do jumping jacks? well anyway a quote like this when drinking college kids jumping off their frathouse roofs into pools below getting $365 is strictly for the birds. i eat good, dont smoke, and am strong as an ox. i demand a better quote for the love of pete.

Skipping 123 Messages...
Just got my letter of acceptance for Term 80 with NWML.. Premier Tobacco @ $500,000, I'm 29. I can scan my list of premiums for the # of X years for anyone interested. Starts at $657 at year 1, $709 at year 5, $898 at year 10, $1188 at year 15, $1696 at year 20, $2748 at year 25, $5033 at year 30. I assume by about 55, I really won't need it hardly at all. I know my parents wouldn't at this point. Again, I have plans to quit smoking in the next year and work on negotiating better rates in the years to come.. but this policy will cover me "if" I come up with some wild medical condition in the next year or two, that would prevent me from getting decent rates. Now, to work on smoking.

Thanks everyone, I had an opportunity to sit out in the woods hunting deer this weekend and do a lot of thinking about things.. including permanent life insurance, it's out the door as it originally was, nobody will be able to talk me into it.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014