Just for whom is the whole life insurance meant for?
I've heard a number of people saying that they don't want to buy whole life because when they get older, their dependents would have grown up and thus there's no need to cover them anymore. The alternative is thus the term life plan because it's cheaper. This seems to suggest that the whole life plan is just for the coverage of their dependents in case the sole breadwinner (the person insured whose life is insured by the whole life policy) passed away.
My post here is to question that very assumption - that the whole life plan policy is to cover dependents in case you pass away prematurely, thus leaving them with a huge lump sum.
I do not use the whole life for such purpose. There are cheaper alternatives for such lump sum gift for those loved ones you leave behind to take care of financial matters. I propose that a whole life plan can be used to protect your own savings that had been built up thus far, from events that can erode it considerably. Events such as cancer, stroke, heart attacks and any other events that are debilitating yet not fatal immediately. In this sense, whole life policy will act like compulsory savings to force you to save up for such events.
Term plan can work the same, yes. But the catch is that term plan coverage only last around 60 yrs whereas whole life plan cover for an extended period till 100 yrs old.
So what happens between the years when your term plan coverage ceases? I think whole life can be used precisely for that purpose - to cover for the period when your term plan no longer covers you, until the day you pass on.
If something strikes you after 60 yrs old, and you do not have whole life coverage, someone will have to foot the bill. There are hospital and surgical fees to take care of, and there are other fees that had to be incurred that do not require hospital stay. Only the former are covered by H&S plans, so what about the latter? Things like non-standard drugs, stay home nurses and maid, overseas treatment....who is going to pay for them? The H&S plans do not cover things like that and I do not want to burden my spouse, relatives or dependents, so I have to depend on myself. But I do not trust myself that I can save up enough for such purposes, hence a whole life plan is critical for me to hedge against my own ability to prepare for such events.
I think of my own situation. I am sandwiched between two parties - the needs of my parents and the needs for myself. I've to buy insurance for my parents because they only have enough savings to take care of themselves if nothing extraordinary happens. If something is to happen, it will firstly wipe out all their retirement savings and secondly tap into my savings too.
They told me if something bad is to happen to them, I don't have to treat them because there's no point. I do not think I can do that. Can anybody do that? Not me. I only have limited amount of savings to handle my own affairs. If I have to help my parents, who would foot the bill for me if something is to happen to me? My dependents? Then this whole cycle will repeat again!!
I'm not a saviour nor a hero to rescue my future generations from this vicious cycle. I'm just a normal person struggling to make good on my dual duty as both a kid to my parent and a parent to my kids. It is only responsible for my kids to be born into this world without the excess baggage of the previous generation. I might not be able to do it, but hey, guess what, I'm doing my best.
It's also a bit too much to ask for a product to cover all of this stuff that I've talked about. It's not possible. I'll try to cover as many loopholes as I can foresee and do my best to steer my ship as danger free as I possibly can.
--------------------------------------------
Do note that I'm not a financial advisor. Of course I'm not. I'm just trying to make sense of all the debate here and there and reason out for myself on the actual purpose of certain insurance policies. I believe that no financial advisor can do that for you - you've got to think and reason it out for yourself. I do not presume to think for everyone, because my situation is uniquely mine. So do not follow me, because I'm not your leader. Do not walk ahead of me, because I might not be able to follow you. Do however, walk beside me as a friend, so that we can all share and discuss all our interesting life experiences together.
I've heard a number of people saying that they don't want to buy whole life because when they get older, their dependents would have grown up and thus there's no need to cover them anymore. The alternative is thus the term life plan because it's cheaper. This seems to suggest that the whole life plan is just for the coverage of their dependents in case the sole breadwinner (the person insured whose life is insured by the whole life policy) passed away.
My post here is to question that very assumption - that the whole life plan policy is to cover dependents in case you pass away prematurely, thus leaving them with a huge lump sum.
I do not use the whole life for such purpose. There are cheaper alternatives for such lump sum gift for those loved ones you leave behind to take care of financial matters. I propose that a whole life plan can be used to protect your own savings that had been built up thus far, from events that can erode it considerably. Events such as cancer, stroke, heart attacks and any other events that are debilitating yet not fatal immediately. In this sense, whole life policy will act like compulsory savings to force you to save up for such events.
Term plan can work the same, yes. But the catch is that term plan coverage only last around 60 yrs whereas whole life plan cover for an extended period till 100 yrs old.
So what happens between the years when your term plan coverage ceases? I think whole life can be used precisely for that purpose - to cover for the period when your term plan no longer covers you, until the day you pass on.
If something strikes you after 60 yrs old, and you do not have whole life coverage, someone will have to foot the bill. There are hospital and surgical fees to take care of, and there are other fees that had to be incurred that do not require hospital stay. Only the former are covered by H&S plans, so what about the latter? Things like non-standard drugs, stay home nurses and maid, overseas treatment....who is going to pay for them? The H&S plans do not cover things like that and I do not want to burden my spouse, relatives or dependents, so I have to depend on myself. But I do not trust myself that I can save up enough for such purposes, hence a whole life plan is critical for me to hedge against my own ability to prepare for such events.
I think of my own situation. I am sandwiched between two parties - the needs of my parents and the needs for myself. I've to buy insurance for my parents because they only have enough savings to take care of themselves if nothing extraordinary happens. If something is to happen, it will firstly wipe out all their retirement savings and secondly tap into my savings too.
They told me if something bad is to happen to them, I don't have to treat them because there's no point. I do not think I can do that. Can anybody do that? Not me. I only have limited amount of savings to handle my own affairs. If I have to help my parents, who would foot the bill for me if something is to happen to me? My dependents? Then this whole cycle will repeat again!!
I'm not a saviour nor a hero to rescue my future generations from this vicious cycle. I'm just a normal person struggling to make good on my dual duty as both a kid to my parent and a parent to my kids. It is only responsible for my kids to be born into this world without the excess baggage of the previous generation. I might not be able to do it, but hey, guess what, I'm doing my best.
It's also a bit too much to ask for a product to cover all of this stuff that I've talked about. It's not possible. I'll try to cover as many loopholes as I can foresee and do my best to steer my ship as danger free as I possibly can.
--------------------------------------------
Do note that I'm not a financial advisor. Of course I'm not. I'm just trying to make sense of all the debate here and there and reason out for myself on the actual purpose of certain insurance policies. I believe that no financial advisor can do that for you - you've got to think and reason it out for yourself. I do not presume to think for everyone, because my situation is uniquely mine. So do not follow me, because I'm not your leader. Do not walk ahead of me, because I might not be able to follow you. Do however, walk beside me as a friend, so that we can all share and discuss all our interesting life experiences together.


