Three thousand a month is about right for private nursing home care--or was. Some of the upscale places can cost even more. If you can afford the insurance--it makes good sense--if not you may want to consider other alternatives. A family member, in Louisiana, now deceased, gave away his property--everything--to the kids and retained usufruct until his death. That solved part of the problem of worrying about nursing home expense to the extent of his possibly losing the results of a lifetime of work--if leaving it to your heirs is what you want to do. I believe at the time that the exclusion period was six months, i.o.w. the property had to have been out of his ownership for at least six months or they could go back and reclaim it. That period of time may have changed. Only a good lawyer is going to know for certain. Cash is a different ballgame altogether. Single premium life insurance policies can sometimes provide a means of transferring any cash that isn't deemed necessary to maintain a lifestyle--if leaving it to your heirs is what you want to do. If there's a sizeable amount of cash involved then you can use this as leverage to insure that those gaining the real property "behave" since the beneficiary can be changed up until practically the moment of death. Talk to a financial planner (a CPA with experience in the field) and a lawyer.

chisue, insurance companies don't make money strictly off policy premiums. AIG's current headline news is a perfect example of this. When I worked at CIGNA (formerly Connecticut General, then they bought INA and changed their name), each of their 5 separate divisions was given an annual profit margin target to hit. This was called a "zero margin plus xx%". Note this was not a sales number, it was a "quick and dirty" percentage of how much revenue minus division expenses they made annually. My boss (one of the regional VPs with a shot at the division presidency) got interested in exactly where this target number came from. He learned that what CIGNA called "zero margin" was actually a base 15% profit margin. CIGNA could earn 15% off its money, through investments and such things as real estate development (for instance they bankrolled Foster City, a landfill development in the SF Bay Area that was considered risky at the time, but is now a desirable mixed-use suburb, selling it after a few years for a hefty profit), without ever writing another insurance policy. Therefore, their divisions had to earn OVER that 15% profit margin, to be worth expending corporate funds for. This is why insurance companies go in and out of market niches - they tend to keep a fairly conservative eye on what their profit margins are on each line of business. When people are discussing the stock market, the majority of money in it is institutional. Insurance companies are a very large part of that. They are even better than banks at leveraging their money. We used to make jokes about actuaries, but insurance companies realistically suvive on the number-crunching abilities of their actuaries. Like developers in a software company, they are what actually drives the financial corporate engines.

Depending upon your life situation (if you need insurance at all, some don't), a person should have anywhere from 4 to 7x their annual gross income in total life insurance. Life insurance, BTW, passes tax free to the beneficiary although it is counted in the total value of your estate for federal estate tax purposes. Wealthy people get around this by setting up ILITs (Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts). As an Exec Asst for salespeople, I worked at CIGNA insurance for 13 years. I also worked at an independent CFP's office for 18 months, who was both a broker and insurance agent. I would recommend level term insurance - in fact, the CFP I worked for refused to recommend anything else unless the policy was for tax planning purposes, in which case he recommended Universal Life. Annual renewable insurance costs much more over the long run. Mortality statistics have improved so much that term insurance is quite simply, the most economical choice for just about everyone. And level term insurance means your premium will never change, regardless of your health situation, for the entire period it is in force. Insurance companies make a lot of money off whole life and even universal life policies. With the decline in the stock market, the advantages of universal life have suffered compared to straight term insurance. Never underestimate what long-term inflation does to cash values. It hasn't been that long since people thought $50K or $100K was a lot of life insurance - but these days, $100K buys very little if your family is trying to live off of it for the next 15 years, or trying to send two kids to college and grad school. Pick the longest term that takes you to retirement age. Most people GENERALLY do not need large amounts of insurance after they retire, but YMMV. Disability insurance, if you are not covered at work, is extremely useful up until the time you retire. But the underwriting standards are extremely strict right now, unlike life insurance underwriting. It is virtually impossible to get a policy for more than 60% of your last two years' income (verified by copies of your tax returns) even if you are in good health. In contrast, I am a standard risk, NOT preferred. I have $750K of life insurance for less than $80/mo that was purchased a few years ago when I was over 50. One is a 15-yr level term, and the other is a 20-yr level term. I have them for estate planning purposes. If I were to try to purchase whole life or universal life in that amount, the cost would be astronomical.

Hi Moni, Whole life covers one for the rest of one's life ... and, as they say, builds cash value. But the cash value relates to the lower price of insuring one while young, with the actual annual costs rising as one ages, resulting in the cash value decreasing as one gets old. One can borrow against the cash value, resulting in a cost for interest. It is my understanding that the cash value disappears when one dies: one then gets only the death benefit that was guaranteed. You can have the cash value, or the death benefit ... but not both. Term insurance covers the life insured for a specified number of years, e.g. 10 years, 20 years, etc., usually for the full face value, but I think that, though seldom used, decreasing term is available, where the payout rate diminishes as the years in that contract period go by. As one ages, the possibility of one's dying during the period of the next term increases, so the price quoted rises, very substantially as one ages. It becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to initiate any policy for a person over age 80. As Iva Mae says, in Canada "Term to 100" is available, to cover one until age 100. It may cover one beyond that, but I suspect that the coverage dies on one's 100th birthday: if it's claimed that such isn't so, I'd want it in writing. Ordinarily, over one's lifetime, a fanily's need for insurance decreases, being for a large amount when young, if there's a family, to pay off mortgage (and I don't like insurance just to cover mortgage), and provide the surviving spouse and small children with their needs until they become independent, probably including at least part of the cost of advanced education. As one ages, the need reduces, so, while the premiums for a specified amount of term insurance increases, the amount that the family needs to carry reduces, thus they can continue to pay less for term than for whole life with the difference available for investment. The idea then is that the amount of one's invested asset increases over the years, thus reducing the amount needed to support the family's needs. The goal is to have enough assets built up over the years to be able to self-finance, thus being able to do without term insurance late in life, when it becomes very expensive. Thus, we often hear the saying, "Buy term (when young) and invest the difference (between the cost of whole life that stays constant through the years and term, which increases as each term expires). ole joyful