Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To hate the comment about "why dont you have life insurance"?

263 replies

partinor · 16/01/2019 19:52

Yes if a partner dies when the family rely on their income, there will be a major impact on the finances of the household. And yes, life insurance would solve at least that impact.
BUT not everyone can get life insurance that covers everything. A LOT of people are born as children with illnesses that can have an impact on life expectancy, and so these will often not be covered by life insurance. With some conditions, it may be that you can not get any life insurance. Or the costs may be too high.
And when I was young and took out life insurance policies routinely excluded causes of death such as suicide or risky behaviour.
But easier to just blame the individuals.

OP posts:
HoppingPavlova · 17/01/2019 11:08

You need to base it on all aspects of your life - not a blanket rule for everyone.

This is very true. If you have more than enough money sitting in the bank or other secure assets that could be used that would provide coverage needed then it’s not needed.

Riotingbananas · 17/01/2019 11:13

The length of cover would depend on whether you have a term or whole of life policy. And whether you stop paying the premiums of course!

scaryteacher · 17/01/2019 11:14

partinor They will happily insure those who they think are at a low risk of dying. Our wholr of life policy costs were about to go trhough the roof, and I asked why. It was solemnly explained to us that as we were older our 'risk' of dying had increased. I pointed out that it hadn't as it was just as certain at 1 minute old that I would die some day as it was when I was 45. I am 100% going to die some die, as are all of us. I pointed out that what the company really meant was that their likelihood of paying out on my death increased as I aged. I cancelled the policy.

Mabelface · 17/01/2019 11:14

I don't have life insurance because I can't afford it, rather than me being irresponsible.

Minniemountain · 17/01/2019 11:23

We have a fully offset mortgage and additional savings but we still have life insurance.

If one of us dies/gets diagnosed with a terminal illness we feel the best we can do for DS is for the other parent to take time off work. The life insurance will pay for that.

We are aware that the insurance is unlikely to be needed. Then again, I had cancer last year so one never knows.

howabout · 17/01/2019 11:25

If you would need the benefits system and have no mortgage to pay off then a life insurance pay out would mean you had too much capital to access benefits.

In short life insurance is only worth it for mortgaged homeowners, who are a diminishing percentage of those with dependents.

reallyanotherone · 17/01/2019 12:11

If you would need the benefits system and have no mortgage to pay off then a life insurance pay out would mean you had too much capital to access benefits

Eh? Are you saying you shouldn’t get life insurance so you can rely on benefits should your partner die or become ill?

I don’t have a mortgage. Dh and I have critical care and life insurance so if one up us dies or becomes incapacatitated and can no longer work we can live of the insurance.

The insurance payout will be more than benefits. And i’d rather know i was insured that take the risk that benefits will a) still exist when i am old and b) be enough to cover rent, bills, and provide a good standard of living.

howabout · 17/01/2019 12:17

I think most people underestimate how it costs to take the place of the benefit system if you are not a home owner and have dependents.

Cheesycheesytwist · 17/01/2019 12:17

I never bothered pre DC, but now have several policies for me and DH, the first ones were ones for both of us when we had DC and then a big one to cover DH when I became a Sahm, it would be awful enough losing DH, without having to go back to work quickly for financial reasons.

I'd never say it out loud if someone died (very insensitive!) but I would be thinking it.

Cheesycheesytwist · 17/01/2019 12:19

And to the pp who mentioned benefits, I wouldn't relish the thought of having to live on benefits if I lost DH, they hardly provide a generous lifestyle compared to a decent insurance payout!

Craft1905 · 17/01/2019 13:11

But most people who die without life insurance are just plain fucking irresponsible, and never bought it because "it won't happen to me".

Well no, I disagree. When my Mum bought her house post retirement, she didn't take out life insurance because she doesn't need it. She has a pension, no dependants, and money in the bank that will pay for her funeral. Why does she need it?

Oh ffs...we're clearly talking about people who do need life insurance but don't buy it. People with young kids, or a large mortgage outstanding that their surviving partner can't pay alone.

Like travel insurance. No one is moaning about people who don't buy it....because they aren't going anywhere!!!

Craft1905 · 17/01/2019 13:16

Ours is included in our employment package also, so we have never bought any

Big mistake. What you probably have with your employment package is Death In Service cover, that pays you a multiple of your annual salary if you die whilst you are their employee. But if you get cancer or some other awful illness, you won't be employed by them when you die, as they would have had to let you go long before you actually depart this mortal coil. And then it'll be too late to buy life insurance, as you'll be seriously ill and no one will sell it to

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 17/01/2019 13:36

But it’s something so essential for anyone with kids! Or anyone with a mortgage.

I have a child and a mortgage. I can’t get life insurance. Am I a disgrace for even considering having children?

Disabilities don't generally stop you getting life insurance unless they are life limiting. And if you choose to have children with someone you know has a life limiting condition and who therefore cant get life insurance then it would be reasonable to assume you have an alternative plan to support them.

I’d be interested to know what ‘alternative plans’ most people could make. See if Madonna or Elton John will adopt you? It’s accepted that ostensibly healthy people should still have life insurance as that’s almost certainly the only means by which they could provide for their families if they died; yet people already in very poor health will automatically have several other ways of magicking hundreds of thousands of pounds together? What's the alternative if they don't have a magic money tree - remain a single hermit for the rest of their lives?

The thing is, though, that if you can get life insurance with a disability, it will almost certainly cost you several times more than it would cost a healthy person. I'm far from rare in having a number of disabling conditions and bad family history, any one of which alone would see me turned down for insurance.

As PPs have said, their adverts are all supposedly about wanting to help you have peace of mind that your family will be looked after, but the reality for them is that you’re a commodity to bet on - an investment.

To be blunt, it’s no different really from picking loose fruit at the supermarket. If you see a small, bashed, bruised, blackened one in the box along with the shiny juicy ones, you wouldn't for a moment consider buying it. For many of us, as far as insurance companies are concerned, we ARE that manky old apple.

Also, with disabilities (and don’t forget that disabilities often come in multiples and/or lead to developing complications) is that they aren't just inconsequential badges that you wear and go about your day. They frequently take a serious toll on people’s ability to work in demanding highly-paid jobs - and/or pain and other effects can simply rule out any possibility of working more than part time, however much one may wish to. It’s too easy for a healthy person who is fully able (OK, would prefer not to have to) to work FT on £50K and pay £20/month for LI to berate somebody whose health will only allow them to maybe work on a checkout two days a week on NMW, but who has ‘decided’ not to spend their entire wage on LI. Nevertheless, they need to consider their children if they die, you might say; what about putting food on the table in a non-freezing house for them whilst you're still alive?

In addition, there are two massive elephants in the room when it comes to insuring yourself.

The first is that life insurance is only one side of the coin – you are statistically far more likely to develop a critical illness than to die outright. In such a case, you also cannot work and provide for your family but, unlike life insurance, you yourself are also still around and incurring costs for your family. Critical illness cover usually costs significantly more than plain life insurance, even for the currently healthy, let alone those with existing conditions. Only buying LI is like insuring your house for burglary but not for fire or flood damage.

The second is the fact that, if you have certain disabilities or health complications, you may be able to get life insurance (rarely critical illness insurance) at a much higher price ON CONDITION THAT they will not pay out if you die as a result of existing conditions. Lots of (probably most) disabilities and health conditions don’t exist as an island in an otherwise perfectly-healthy body and mind – pretty much anything could be argued to have been caused by or potentially linked to the existing condition, on however tenuous grounds.

What’s the point of paying potentially £200-£300 every month for the false peace of mind that should you die, you will do so believing your family has been provided for financially, only for them to discover that the insurer refuses to pay out because your MS/CF/diabetes could potentially have even slightly exacerbated anything that might have actually killed you? Much better to have saved the money if you had it spare or otherwise not struggled to pay it to the fat cats to the detriment of your family’s wellbeing/enjoyment in the first place.

QuizzlyBear · 17/01/2019 13:56

60% of adults in the U.K don't have a Will. I think it's safe to assume that an even larger proportion don't have life insurance - and I can't believe that it's because they're all uninsurable.

We have an odd culture here where we seem to assume that the one and only constant in life (death) won't happen to us, or if it does it'll be at about 80/85/when we're ready.

Craft1905 · 17/01/2019 13:59

This thread has been totally derailed by those who can't grasp what it being discussed here.

Everyone knows if you're a lion tamer with cancer, you can't get life insurance. Everyone knows that if you're 83 and a billionaire, you don't need life insurance.

What we're talking about is people who bleat on about being poor because their spouse died and left them with a huge mortgage and 4 young kids, and then people ask "didn't he have life insurance?" OP thinks that's an outrageous thing to say. I think it's quite a fair thing to say, because in the vast majority of cases, it'll be because they just didn't bother.

If they answer, "he couldn't get life insurance because he was a bomb disposal expert with rabies", then that's a fair answer.

howabout · 17/01/2019 13:59

cheesy if you are a SAHM you should have life insurance for you so that your DH could replace you with paid for childcare if he had to. In practical terms if your mortgage is paid off in the event either of you die then this would probably give him the equivalent.

If both parents have pension schemes then these also act as good proxies for life insurance. Worth also checking whether you have long term sickness insurance as part of your benefits package.

In the pp example where the older employee leaves work with terminal cancer, thus losing their death in service benefit they will have accrued pension benefits. Severance / redundancy payments are also the norm in cases like this.

QuizzlyBear · 17/01/2019 13:59

Also I say this as someone who's had to watch the unfortunate benefits of it unfold in front of me when a young friend (mid 20s) recently lost her husband (shock illness, healthy to dead in a week). They had two children under 2, were renting and she had no job.

Luckily he'd taken out life insurance just two months prior and she was able to use it to buy the three of them a home, without it she'd have been left destitute.

howabout · 17/01/2019 14:09

Craft that is a ridiculous statement. Lots of people lose their careers or get divorced and no-one blames them for not having insured themselves against these eventualities. Why should insuring against death be more of a responsibility?

Craft1905 · 17/01/2019 15:04

Craft that is a ridiculous statement. Lots of people lose their careers or get divorced and no-one blames them for not having insured themselves against these eventualities. Why should insuring against death be more of a responsibility?

You cannot insure yourself against getting a divorce. You can insure against losing your job, but it's expensive. And you still earn a living doing something else.

For most people with young children, life insurance is quite cheap, and unlike losing your job, if you lose your life......you cannot get another one!!!!!

namechangedtoday15 · 17/01/2019 15:10

@howabout - when you get divorced, it doesn't stop you earning a living. Your outgoings pay go up but you're unlikely to be quite the dire financial straits you'd be in following the death of an income providing spouse. Similarly if you or your spouse loses their job, you may be entitled to benefits whilst you & s/he look for another job.

Divorce/ loss of job is completely different to death of spouse.

CatchingBabies · 17/01/2019 15:18

I don’t have life insurance and it terrifies me, as the main earner if anything happened to me before our mortgage was paid my partner and children would lose the house. I was turned down by 14 insurers however due to recent cancer and strong family history of cancer. Not a lot I can do when I am uninsurable.

FuzzyShadowChatter · 17/01/2019 15:32

I can see the arguments for it being irresponsible if you can do otherwise to protect yourself, but I think most people who don't are less "nothing will happen to me" as many seem to assume with bile and more either focused and already overwhelmed with dealing with the daily responsibilities in front of them or have the bleak view that whatever will happen will happen and that they're not personally worth enough to be worth the cost of doing that. It is something that should be brought up to people's attention more, though when discussing a bereavement is probably not the best one.

Craft1905 · 17/01/2019 15:34

Divorce/ loss of job is completely different to death of spouse

It's amazing it even needs saying. If someone can't grasp this, they really shouldn't be allowed on the internet without adult supervision!.

howabout · 17/01/2019 15:55

namechange your solution to divorce / loss of career seems to be reliance on the other partner / state. How is that any different to death? The remaining partner picks up the slack just the same and doesn't have to worry about splitting assets to set up 2 HH or supporting 2nd adult.

How do people feel about single parents being insured and dying leaving their DC with a big pot of money for their "guardians" to fight over?

Bellasorellaa · 17/01/2019 16:27

i dont know about all this but my mum died unexpectedly at 55 and we each got 26k in her life insurance policy plus the sell of the house
it has set us 3 kids up for a good future

life insurance is very important if you can get it