Old people don't need life insurance?

I was browsing through some of the blogs when I saw Mr Tan's post on insurance. It's his usual style to advice people to buy term and invest the rest. But that doesn't attract me - it's this line:


"There is no need for people to have life insurance when they are old."


By 'life insurance', I take it that he means the whole life variety - those plans that gives a lump sum pay out in the event of death and total permanent disability of the insured person from the inception of the policy till age 100.  This is very different from the very much cheaper term plan where a similar lump sum pay out will be paid out but it is usually up to age 65. However, life insurance these days come along with a critical illness (CI) rider that allows a lump sum payment when it strikes. Since this rider 'rides' onto the main plan of the whole life, which is up to age 100, the CI cover will also be up to age 100. I am under the impression that CI stand alone cover up to age 100 is either exorbitant in price or does not exist.


What do we need when we're old?


I think we need a comprehensive, as-charged hospitalization and surgery plans (H&S) that covers the expenses if you are hospitalized. The key word here is that you must be hospitalized locally, otherwise the H&S plans do not cover them. Some had mentioned that instead of using the CI cover that is usually attached to whole life plans these days (and covers up to age 100), we can use the H&S plans to replace CI cover from age 65 and beyond. While it's true that H&S plans cover treatment of CI, it's also relevant that H&S covers expenses ONLY if you're hospitalized in local hospitals. If you remember Charmaine's case, the little girl had to seek alternative cancer treatment overseas because the local hospitals do not have this particular drug (pardon me if I remember the details incorrectly). The cost turns out to be 350k USD and this huge sum definitely cannot be covered in the H&S plans unless you bought one of those special ones (not to forget, expensive ones) that covers overseas hospitalization bills as well. A lump sum payout by the CI rider will be very helpful in such cases. Even if it's not for overseas treatment, the lump sum is good for covering expenses related to the critical illness outside of hospitals, which is currently not covered under the H&S plans.


(Of course, you might not be able to claim your CI even if you have CI, particularly with regards to cancer. This is because of the very stupid clause where the cancer had to be in the ending stages. I ask, if it's in the ending stages, why seek treatment? If it's not the ending stage, how do I get the payout to seek treatment? Catch 22...)

I've no idea why the doc and the man is so happy with the latter throwing away his money

Do old people need death payout? It's perfectly correct to say that when we're old, there is no more dependents. If your life insurance is planned for your dependents, then obviously you do not need it when there are no more dependents. In that case, getting a term plan is perfect because unless you have a kid beyond age 40, by age 65 your dependents would already have become independent. This makes the life policy meaningless. What about the cash value of whole life plans? It's really nothing much to shout for, because if you invest in equities related instruments, you'll probably end up getting more (or losing very badly). If you need to invest, don't buy a whole life plan obviously.


It thus appears that the one redeeming feature of whole life policy is the CI cover up to age 100. I faintly remember someone mentioning that if you start savings now and invest it wisely, by the time you need it after age 65, you can self-insure the costs, especially if you bought yourself a good H&S plan. What if I can't save enough or what if my savings are all lost in the bear market? I would insure against that possibility with a few layers of defense:


1. A fully paid up whole life plan with sufficient (but not overly high) CI cover to protect my savings from age 65 to age 100. This is to reduce the premium so that I can sustain the costs of maintaining the policy, which is not going to be cheap compared to term plans.

2. A good amount of savings.

3. Be darn good to my children so that if I need them to take care of me and I have the financial means to fund it, filial piety can be quite a given. These days, one has to provide the conducive environment for children to be filial - by being a good natured senior citizen and a financially 'okay' senior citizen.


What about now to age 65? Get a term plan lah, it has depth of coverage but do not have the length of coverage. Who says you have to buy term and invest the rest only? You can buy term, buy whole, save up and invest!