Term life insurance quote

**noppenbd** · 04-24-2009, 03:42 AM

It depends on the length of the term, and whether it is level (fixed premiums for the length of the term).

**Like2Plan** · 04-24-2009, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by mommyof4 View Post

I just applied for a term life insurance policy for myself, my husband, and my children. My husband and I are both 43, non smokers, in good health. The policy provide me with 50K for $24.85/quarter, my husband 25K at 15.03/quarter,and each child 5K for 3.30/quarter (all four kids). Don't worry, we have more term insurance through my work and another private policy, so this is not our only policy. But I just want to know if you think this is a good price for some additional coverage?

Thanks.

The only way I know to evaluate a price is to divide the annual premium by the amount of ins (in 1,000 of coverage) . In your case, that would be 99.4/50 or $1.98 per $1,000 of coverage.
In your DH's case 60.12/25 or $2.40 per $1,000 of coverage. Your children would be $2.64 per $1,000 of coverage (is that each child you pay 3.30 per quarter or for all 4?)

Is this a level term? What is the length of the term? How long do you think you will need this coverage?

I think this policy you are evaluating is on the high side, but I don't know what policies cost these days. I have a 20 year level term that I got a few years ago (I was older than you are now) and I pay $1.59 per $1,000 of coverage on an annual basis.

**atomicrc11** · 04-24-2009, 07:52 AM

Also, try to keep the number of policies you have down. Typically there is some costs built into each policy for marketing/personnel/etc that are duplicated with multiple policies. It is almost always less expensive to have a single 1 million dollar policy than two 500k policies for example.

**noppenbd** · 04-24-2009, 08:18 AM

For comparison, we just got new 30-yr level term policies at the following rates:

Myself (33 yr old nonsmoker), $620K policy @ $564 a year (0.90 per 1K coverage)
My wife (32 yr old nonsmoker), $350K policy @ 324 a year (0.92 per 1K coverage)

So your polices are about 2-2.5X as expensive as mine on a cost/1K basis.

**MonkeyMama** · 04-24-2009, 09:38 AM

To some of the comments, age makes a HUGE difference. It's only meaningful to compare rates in the same age group.

**Like2Plan** · 04-25-2009, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by MonkeyMama View Post

To some of the comments, age makes a HUGE difference. It's only meaningful to compare rates in the same age group.

Very true. In my example, I was 5 years older than the OP when I obtained my ins and my premium is cheaper. However, the OP did not say exactly what product she is purchasing--mine was 20 yr level term. She may be buying 30 yr level term, etc, so we may be comparing apples and oranges.

Another factor in the cost of ins is market factors and so maybe the premiums have gone up since I made my purchase.

**cptacek** · 04-28-2009, 07:06 PM

Why insure the kids?

**creditoria** · 04-28-2009, 09:42 PM

No one's case will be exactly as yours. There are quoting sites for everything on the web including Life and health insurance. It would cost you nothing to request several quotes to compare.

**kork13** · 04-29-2009, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by cptacek View Post

Why insure the kids?

Kids are worth insuring, IMO. Obviously doesn't have to be alot, since the family doesn't rely on an income stream from them, but should at least cover potential funeral costs, and any medical expenses that might be latent from prior to their possible deaths.

My brother and sister died a number of years ago, and the insurance my parents had on them (I think about $10k on each)was enough for just that--funeral expenses, and some latent medical expenses (in the case of my brother, cancer treatment stretching back 3 years). It prevented much of my parents' ready savings from being depleted in a single shot.

It's not something comfortable to think about, but worth being prepared for.

**tripods68** · 04-29-2009, 08:11 AM

Actually Kids aren't worth insuring because they do not generate income for the family, unless of course, you rely on your kids income, then YES. Term insurance is meant for breadwinner ONLY.

**MonkeyMama** · 04-29-2009, 05:30 PM

Our policies were bought in our 20s - they cost pennies.

I've considered insuring the kids. I am the sole breadwinner and I have seen moms lose their kids who could not function. We would probably need the income to get through (god forbid). I am all for self insuring, but it's kind of a catch 22 - we have taken such an income hit with kids, etc. It could be beneficial while they are young. It's just a little too morbid for me to follow through with.

Other people insure their kids in case they get sick and can't get insurance for themselves when they are older. Not that it is smart. My dh has some $25k policy that his mom is intent on keeping. It's one of those whole life things. Ugh. like $25k amounts to squat now that he is an adult. It would cover funeral costs, etc., but I think we could swing $25k if something happened to him. $25k is not near enough to cover lost wages, etc. I've asked her many times to cash out (cash value a whopping $4k - I assure you she has paid in tons more) and give the money to our kids (for college). People don't consider inflation, basically.

**kork13** · 04-29-2009, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by tripods68 View Post

Actually Kids aren't worth insuring because they do not generate income for the family, unless of course, you rely on your kids income, then YES. Term insurance is meant for breadwinner ONLY.

I respect your opinion, and honestly, I don't think insuring kids is extremely important. I just also see the reasoning/potential benefit of doing it, and expect that in the future, I'll probably insure my kids.

However, allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment... According to this sentiment, would you also tell a single-income married couple (no kids) that the non-working spouse should not have life insurance?

(I qualify there not being kids because it could be argued that the non-employed spouse provides child care, which in the event of his/her death, would need to be replaced)

**tripods68** · 04-29-2009, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by kork13 View Post

However, allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment... According to this sentiment, would you also tell a single-income married couple (no kids) that the non-working spouse should not have life insurance?

(I qualify there not being kids because it could be argued that the non-employed spouse provides child care, which in the event of his/her death, would need to be replaced)

That really depends on person's lifestyle and accumulation of wealth. If couples have huge debt with a sole breadwinner. I might consider buying insurance for non working spouse. But a young couple who are just starting out without hardly any asset, then I don't recommend it. At least not now.

I worked as Life Agent for years, let me tell you the amount of insurance and ridership that people adds into the policy are just ridiculous without considering the mortality table. The younger a person is the less likely he or she will die. So insuring kids are justified based on emotion not on practicality. In any event, Term insurance is to provide the maximum insurance benefit to its beneficiary at cheaper cost in case the breadwinner dies.

Term life insurance quote