posted: Jan. 11, 2013 @ 9:16a
Note: ALL of my response are based upon my experience of working with people who have said similar things as Ben H. I have no reason to doubt that there is something that makes Ben H different than everybody else. Therefore, as an individual, he should ignore all of my answers since he is different.
Really all entirely irrelevant as I have stated through this entire threat that my goal is to buy additional insurance. Most of my questions have focused on how to do it procedural, and in the most fiscally conservative way while still providing the necessary amount. I have debated what that necessary amount is, but if you actually read my posts my concerns were more "should I leave them a windfall...or simply enough to maintain standard of living." Not once did I state my plan was to only leave them enough to "get by", I stated that were I to die with my current coverage, and our current savings (and our current inheritance down the line) that she would be in a situation a lot better off than many people find themselves in.
There are plenty of things that have been said that could lead one to the conclusion that you might be willing to leave less than what is needed for the family to maintain their standard of living. (dependence upon inheritance from your family, dependence upon wife’s ability to earn a decent income, wife get remarried, ADD depending upon the odds, comparison to other people instead of comparison to current standard of living)
I realized I needed more insurance. I posted some questions here a week ago. I want to do some due diligence before my purchase. I apologize if it isn't quick enough for you - seems to me to be salesman mentality that I have to walk out your door today with a policy.
No. I think that you should have purchased a policy yesterday, last week, last month, last year. The insurance need isn’t new. Hasn’t this need existed ever since you knocked up your wife?
The cause is not irrelevant if my chance of dying from what AD&D covers is 70% and my chance of dying from what is only covered by standard life insurance is 30%. I understand that if I only took AD&D in that situation I still risk a 30% chance I might die of something else (in terms of all the ways I *might* die, not my % chance of dying) - and so I am still taking a risk. But if AD&D is significantly cheaper (as another poster mentioned) it may be worth considering as a part of the overall strategy.
You are missing that you aren’t taking a 30% risk. You are taking a 0% risk. You are asking your wife and child(ren) to take the risk. If insurance is needed, your wife and kids are taking a 100% risk of not having enough money if you die of something not covered in an AD&D policy (if you go that route or if you don't have enough coverage). With the cost of life insurance so inexpensive, this simply isn’t the place that people (not including you) look to save money.
I'm sure not buying life insurance is one of the lesser things that people with a drug issue are hiding from their spouse.
You have it backwards. They aren’t hiding “not buying life insurance”. They are hiding the drug use.
If I died today - sure, why not. My wife is young enough and pretty enough to find a new husband and my daughter is young enough to not even remember me. The life I would want for them is to be happy - and another million dollars in her pocket in addition to everything else I leave behind is certainly not going to guarantee happiness.
This is the real issue here. You aren’t committed to the idea that your responsibility to your wife and children goes beyond your lifespan.
I am sure that your wife is very pretty and desirable now. As a young grieving unemployed widow without lots of money and a child as her top priority, she is no longer in the “desirable” category.
You don't think there are hundreds of thousands of 35 year old single moms with a mortgage and less than $5K in their bank accounts? My guess is quite a few of them are happy too - even without a couple of extra zeroes on that balance.
I would guess that many of them would be very happy. However, if we change the demographics to “widowed 35 year old moms who must get remarried in order to maintain their same standard of living (or adjust to a lower standard) because their spouse chose to save money on life insurance”, I think that most women in this demographic would be “grieving/bitter/depressed” and not “happy”.
Sounds like salesman talk there. Once I purchase, I've...um...purchased...so why would I shop? I think it is more important to take a few weeks and determine the best course of action. Pushing for anything else is just scare tactics.
No, that is incorrect. There is a reason why I put “purchased” in quotations. When you apply for insurance, you are not locking yourself into anything. In fact, all that you are really doing is saying, “Hey insurance company, make me an offer.” Until you actually apply, it is impossible to know the price. Without the price, how can you make a decision? Even if you pay the first month’s premium, it is irrelevant from a decision making process. If you don’t want the policy, everything gets refunded. You can also apply without paying. Would you rather shop based upon quotes or based upon actual rates? What you are doing is shopping based upon quotes. I am telling you to shop based upon rates. More than half of my clients don’t buy what they originally “purchase”. We frequently change the amount and/or the time period. We often even change the insurance company.
If you know that insurance is needed, there is zero benefit to waiting to apply, but there is plenty of risk. Once again, none of that risk belongs to you. It is all on the shoulders of your wife and kids.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to know the best course of action until after you apply for coverage.
I tend to over-analyze decisions (in most cases a good trait), to explore all options, and to play devil's advocate to some of the more attractive ones. So, as we move forward here (or in other threads), don't confuse my questioning/debating a topic with my disagreement. I just have a long(er) vetting process than most.
That makes sense with almost all decisions. Life insurance is different. You don’t know your options until you know the price. You simply can’t know the price until after you apply. It’s one thing if you don’t know if you truly want to buy coverage or not. If that is the case, go ahead and go through the process. On the other hand, if you just aren’t sure of the details of what you should buy, there is risk, but no benefit to waiting to apply.
On one side of the coin, we have "saving $X/year". On the other side of the coin, we have "making sure that wife and children can maintain standard of living in the event of premature death".
Can't you see how in the aggregate those who can easily afford the premium but choose to not buy the insurance may be much more likely to be in a not very good marriage? Understand that I'm not saying that not buying insurance hurts a marriage. Rather, I am saying that when people don't buy insurance despite an obvious need, there is a good chance that a marriage issue is behind their choice not to buy.