Does it pay to add accidental death benefit to the life policy? Would death in a road rage be considered for accidental death benefits?
Total Comments: 52
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 02:52 pm Post Subject:
It doesn't matter HOW you're Disabled..you STILL need the money to pay bills, etc. However.....you DO have to prove you're Disabled. For Example: It's easier to prove you have lost a limb (physical) than to prove there is something mental wrong with you.
Yes, it is easier to prove that you lost a limb. So what? If you lose a limb and it doesn't disable you, why do you need to collect money? If you do lose a limb and it does disable you, a good disability policy will also pay. The difference is that if you don't lose your arm, but still become disabled, a disability policy will pay while an ADD policy won't.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 03:26 pm Post Subject:
I think Insurance Expert has done a pretty good job explaining everything here. There's really no sense in arguing it.....if you need the insurance, you need the insurance and should be buying coverage that will cover you in all scenarios, not just having been accidentally run over by a bulldozer on the 5th Sunday in February when there's a full moon.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 06:15 pm Post Subject: insurance
TRUE!! It's explained pretty well. I know a few people who have JUST ADD Insurance, because that's about all they can afford. They have it through their employer. However.....that's ALL their employer gives for coverage ( that's kind of sad).
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 09:43 pm Post Subject:
Sometimes people buy ADD without realizing how cheap it is to just buy more insurance coverage. The cost of cheap term isn't linear.
Here's an example:
Very Healthy 29 year old female; $200,000 20 year level term; $124/year
How much would an Accidental Death rider cost? (I don't know)
How much would it cost to double the insurance to $400,000? It would cost $180. This is an increase of $56.
Doesn't it make sense to just pay an additonal $56 to have an extra $200,000 of coverage instead of paying whatever the cost of an Accidental Death rider would be and having limited coverage?
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:43 pm Post Subject:
I can help you with that one a mite Rupert..
Don't forget that all of those deaths listed in statistics as "accidental" do not necessarily qualify under the insurance company's definition of it.
How do they differ?
Just as an 'example'...someone killed in war, even if it's friendly fire, which most certainly would be an accident. May be excluded...or riot, civil unrest, in the comission of a felony, etc. All policys lay out what 'is' and is 'not' considered an accident.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 05:41 am Post Subject:
Why is Accidental Death and A.D.&D coverage inexpensive? Because actuarially the company knows that it's going to "win" in the long run. The terms in most AD&D contracts are pretty restrictive. In requires the insured to die of accidental causes within a specific period of time after the accident, and this can be anywhere from 90-180 days. Gary mentioned early-on in this thread that in HIS state, it's 90 days. He also wisely mentioned that you should check your policy for details! :)
It was mentioned that people with high-risk jobs and hobbies should consider adding this coverage to their life insurance policy. Good idea. The problem commonly found is that the insurer won't issue the rider if there's a distinct risk of the person actually dying in an accident! OMG!!! :shock: So, if your insured is an underwater demolition expert, and in his spare time likes to hang glide, rock climb and free-fall from 20,000 feet- don't hold your breath waiting to have the rider issued! :D
I don't remember who said this earlier in the thread, but as far as the definition of life expectancy is concerned, the idea (now, thiiiiink about this) that half the population is older than age 78 and half is younger than 78 is hard to believe. Thiiiiiiiiink about it. That means that there are just as many people in this country OLDER than 78 as there are YOUNGER than 78. Another way to look at it- half of the people you saw on an average normal day would be 78 or older. Well?
The definition of life expectancy is (a) the average number of years a person has, on average, of life remaining at a given age and gender, or (b) the probable number of years a person will live after a given age, as determined by mortality in a specific geographic area, or if you want to get really fancy, (c) Longevity, period life expectancy Epidemiology The average length of life of persons in a population; the average number of yrs of life remaining for a population of persons, all of age x, and all subject for the remainder of their lives to the observed age-specific death rates corresponding to a current life table. The last one I have to give credit to the McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. Thank you. I couldn't have made that one up on my own.
Now, what about the idea of the purchase? I always told my clients about it, gave them the premium for the coverage, laid out the cutsie little exclusions, and let them make up their own mind. It's cheap, and accidents do play a large role in early-age death. When you get old, you get more careful and don't take the same kind of chances. Take a look at the mortality tables and watch what happens to the mortality rate as one gets into their marriage/child-bearing years and then into their 40s- it's pretty interesting.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:55 pm Post Subject:
I don't remember who said this earlier in the thread, but as far as the definition of life expectancy is concerned, the idea (now, thiiiiink about this) that half the population is older than age 78 and half is younger than 78 is hard to believe. Thiiiiiiiiink about it. That means that there are just as many people in this country OLDER than 78 as there are YOUNGER than 78. Another way to look at it- half of the people you saw on an average normal day would be 78 or older. Well?
Maybe, I'm wrong, but I don't think that anybody said anything that approaches that definition of life expectancy. I think that you may be misinterpreting what I said. I said that if life expectancy is 78, that means that half of the people will live to be 78. That does not mean that any given time, half of the people will be older than 78.
If the life expectancy for 35 year old males is 43 years years, then half of them are expected to be alive at age 78. Yet, today, 100% of these 35 year old males are under 78.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 07:44 pm Post Subject:
If you are in a dangerous line of work, then that will just drive up the premiums anyway.
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 02:05 am Post Subject:
Insurance Expert- here's your quote:
Life expectancy is the age at which half of the population should still be alive. In other words, if life expectancy is 78, half of the people will die before age 78 and half will die after 78.
Maybe you're right about my misinterpretation. When I look at it differently, other ideas pop up. Noooo...on third thought, now I'm just confused. The last sentence of your quote brings it back to my original thought: "Half of the people will die before 78 and half will die after 78." That can't mean anything OTHER than this: If you take a sampling large enough to follow the law of large numbers, say 10,000,000 people, and track each of them through their life and record the age at which each of them dies, your statement implies that half of the 10 mm will die before 78 and half will die at 78 or older. So, of our sampling, 5,000,000 of them will die prematurely and 5,000,000 won't. I can't absolutely say you're wrong...but I'd have to see the actual numbers to truly buy in.
What keeps screwing me up is the idea I posted earlier. By proxy, that means half of the general population lives past age 78...so is 50% of our population aged 78 or older? I don't think so. Let me check something...
Nope...not even close. According to the U.S. Census (2007), only 12.6% of the population was age 65 or older. That means that 87.4% of the population is under 65. So, I just don't get how half our population dies after age 78 if age 65 and older is only 12% of our country.
I'll be the first to admit that at times I can't see the trees for the forest. I can get, shall we say, "stuck" if I think I'm right? I've also learned that I don't know everything. So Expert- can ya help a bud out here?
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 03:36 am Post Subject:
Life expectancy is an average, not a median. Take the average age at which people die from the entire population and you arrive that that number 78.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 02:52 pm Post Subject:
It doesn't matter HOW you're Disabled..you STILL need the money to pay bills, etc. However.....you DO have to prove you're Disabled. For Example: It's easier to prove you have lost a limb (physical) than to prove there is something mental wrong with you.
Yes, it is easier to prove that you lost a limb. So what? If you lose a limb and it doesn't disable you, why do you need to collect money? If you do lose a limb and it does disable you, a good disability policy will also pay. The difference is that if you don't lose your arm, but still become disabled, a disability policy will pay while an ADD policy won't.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 03:26 pm Post Subject:
I think Insurance Expert has done a pretty good job explaining everything here. There's really no sense in arguing it.....if you need the insurance, you need the insurance and should be buying coverage that will cover you in all scenarios, not just having been accidentally run over by a bulldozer on the 5th Sunday in February when there's a full moon.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 06:15 pm Post Subject: insurance
TRUE!! It's explained pretty well. I know a few people who have JUST ADD Insurance, because that's about all they can afford. They have it through their employer. However.....that's ALL their employer gives for coverage ( that's kind of sad).
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 09:43 pm Post Subject:
Sometimes people buy ADD without realizing how cheap it is to just buy more insurance coverage. The cost of cheap term isn't linear.
Here's an example:
Very Healthy 29 year old female; $200,000 20 year level term; $124/year
How much would an Accidental Death rider cost? (I don't know)
How much would it cost to double the insurance to $400,000? It would cost $180. This is an increase of $56.
Doesn't it make sense to just pay an additonal $56 to have an extra $200,000 of coverage instead of paying whatever the cost of an Accidental Death rider would be and having limited coverage?
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:43 pm Post Subject:
I can help you with that one a mite Rupert..
Don't forget that all of those deaths listed in statistics as "accidental" do not necessarily qualify under the insurance company's definition of it.
How do they differ?
Just as an 'example'...someone killed in war, even if it's friendly fire, which most certainly would be an accident. May be excluded...or riot, civil unrest, in the comission of a felony, etc. All policys lay out what 'is' and is 'not' considered an accident.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 05:41 am Post Subject:
Why is Accidental Death and A.D.&D coverage inexpensive? Because actuarially the company knows that it's going to "win" in the long run. The terms in most AD&D contracts are pretty restrictive. In requires the insured to die of accidental causes within a specific period of time after the accident, and this can be anywhere from 90-180 days. Gary mentioned early-on in this thread that in HIS state, it's 90 days. He also wisely mentioned that you should check your policy for details! :)
It was mentioned that people with high-risk jobs and hobbies should consider adding this coverage to their life insurance policy. Good idea. The problem commonly found is that the insurer won't issue the rider if there's a distinct risk of the person actually dying in an accident! OMG!!! :shock: So, if your insured is an underwater demolition expert, and in his spare time likes to hang glide, rock climb and free-fall from 20,000 feet- don't hold your breath waiting to have the rider issued! :D
I don't remember who said this earlier in the thread, but as far as the definition of life expectancy is concerned, the idea (now, thiiiiink about this) that half the population is older than age 78 and half is younger than 78 is hard to believe. Thiiiiiiiiink about it. That means that there are just as many people in this country OLDER than 78 as there are YOUNGER than 78. Another way to look at it- half of the people you saw on an average normal day would be 78 or older. Well?
The definition of life expectancy is (a) the average number of years a person has, on average, of life remaining at a given age and gender, or (b) the probable number of years a person will live after a given age, as determined by mortality in a specific geographic area, or if you want to get really fancy, (c) Longevity, period life expectancy Epidemiology The average length of life of persons in a population; the average number of yrs of life remaining for a population of persons, all of age x, and all subject for the remainder of their lives to the observed age-specific death rates corresponding to a current life table. The last one I have to give credit to the McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. Thank you. I couldn't have made that one up on my own.
Now, what about the idea of the purchase? I always told my clients about it, gave them the premium for the coverage, laid out the cutsie little exclusions, and let them make up their own mind. It's cheap, and accidents do play a large role in early-age death. When you get old, you get more careful and don't take the same kind of chances. Take a look at the mortality tables and watch what happens to the mortality rate as one gets into their marriage/child-bearing years and then into their 40s- it's pretty interesting.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:55 pm Post Subject:
I don't remember who said this earlier in the thread, but as far as the definition of life expectancy is concerned, the idea (now, thiiiiink about this) that half the population is older than age 78 and half is younger than 78 is hard to believe. Thiiiiiiiiink about it. That means that there are just as many people in this country OLDER than 78 as there are YOUNGER than 78. Another way to look at it- half of the people you saw on an average normal day would be 78 or older. Well?
Maybe, I'm wrong, but I don't think that anybody said anything that approaches that definition of life expectancy. I think that you may be misinterpreting what I said. I said that if life expectancy is 78, that means that half of the people will live to be 78. That does not mean that any given time, half of the people will be older than 78.
If the life expectancy for 35 year old males is 43 years years, then half of them are expected to be alive at age 78. Yet, today, 100% of these 35 year old males are under 78.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 07:44 pm Post Subject:
If you are in a dangerous line of work, then that will just drive up the premiums anyway.
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 02:05 am Post Subject:
Insurance Expert- here's your quote:
Life expectancy is the age at which half of the population should still be alive. In other words, if life expectancy is 78, half of the people will die before age 78 and half will die after 78.
Maybe you're right about my misinterpretation. When I look at it differently, other ideas pop up. Noooo...on third thought, now I'm just confused. The last sentence of your quote brings it back to my original thought: "Half of the people will die before 78 and half will die after 78." That can't mean anything OTHER than this: If you take a sampling large enough to follow the law of large numbers, say 10,000,000 people, and track each of them through their life and record the age at which each of them dies, your statement implies that half of the 10 mm will die before 78 and half will die at 78 or older. So, of our sampling, 5,000,000 of them will die prematurely and 5,000,000 won't. I can't absolutely say you're wrong...but I'd have to see the actual numbers to truly buy in.
What keeps screwing me up is the idea I posted earlier. By proxy, that means half of the general population lives past age 78...so is 50% of our population aged 78 or older? I don't think so. Let me check something...
Nope...not even close. According to the U.S. Census (2007), only 12.6% of the population was age 65 or older. That means that 87.4% of the population is under 65. So, I just don't get how half our population dies after age 78 if age 65 and older is only 12% of our country.
I'll be the first to admit that at times I can't see the trees for the forest. I can get, shall we say, "stuck" if I think I'm right? I've also learned that I don't know everything. So Expert- can ya help a bud out here?
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 03:36 am Post Subject:
Life expectancy is an average, not a median. Take the average age at which people die from the entire population and you arrive that that number 78.
Add your comment