[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Why not have reverse life insurance that rew...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Why not have reverse life insurance that rewards longevity?
In particular, reverse life insurance would only pay out to your
loved ones if you live beyond a certain age. This would encourage
your loved ones to keep you alive until you reach that age.
Author : amichail
Score : 45 points
Date : 2022-07-01 15:51 UTC (7 hours ago)
| hirundo wrote:
| It exists, and is known as "compound interest".
| sethhochberg wrote:
| And already something exposed to the insurance world via Whole
| Life policies - which are technically life insurance, but with
| an investment vehicle baked in. Whole life policies are
| typically a lot more expensive than term life, but a portion of
| premiums paid goes into cash value which can be invested in
| markets, and often tax-free.
|
| If you die early, your beneficiaries get a bigger payout than
| you paid in. If you live until the end of the whole life term,
| you've accumulated cash value and investment income on top of
| it.
|
| The "catch" is really just the expense of the premiums. Whole
| life is out of reach of many people shopping for life
| insurance, especially those looking for coverage because their
| financial lives are already pretty close to the edge with
| debts, etc.
| staticman2 wrote:
| The "Catch" with whole life is the expected returns are lower
| than term life coupled with clean, insurance free investment.
|
| You also have a entire industry of sales people spreading
| misinformation about how the policies work:
|
| https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/debunking-the-myths-of-
| who...
| Bostonian wrote:
| Arguably whole life (WL) policies should be compared with
| buying a term policy and investing the difference in bonds,
| since WL policies are relatively safe. Then WL policies are
| competitive because of the tax benefits. WL policies will
| lag (term + stocks), but the latter strategy is more risky.
| scrappyjoe wrote:
| You should research to tontines, as they are somewhat related.
| You pay a lump sum along with a number (10-1000) of people of a
| similar age to buy an asset - say, a property - and then you each
| receive an equal share of the income each year. As people die
| off, the income is shared across successively less people until
| at the end it's only one person who receives the income of the
| entire asset. At the death of the final recipient the asset
| generally cedes to the administrating company as payment for
| their administration over the life of the tontine.
| zosima wrote:
| Robert Louis Stevenson wrote an extremely funny novel about
| Tontines, which are a variant of what you suggest:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Box_(novel)
|
| Just like with life insurance, there is some opportunity for
| abuse...
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It's a general problem in retirement that if you live a long time
| you could outlive your savings. Some answers are
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_annuity
|
| and
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tontine
| rundmc wrote:
| The OECD Pensions team has recently confirmed that in this
| current environment, tontines offer better value for consumers
| than annuities.
| dmurray wrote:
| Sounds like an arbitrage opportunity - shouldn't they pay out
| roughly the same?
| tfehring wrote:
| Yes, there's no reason for the expected total value of your
| payments to inherently be higher or lower for a tontine vs
| an annuity, after adjusting for time value of money.
|
| Typically a tontine would have lower payments in early
| years with much faster acceleration later on compared to an
| annuity. That means that healthier people would generally
| do better with a tontine than an annuity, and less healthy
| people would do better with an annuity. It also means that
| the nominal amount of payments from a tontine is higher
| than those from an equivalently priced annuity, but that
| difference is entirely due to the tontine having more time
| to earn interest on your money before it pays out.
| rundmc wrote:
| Tontines have no liabilities so do not need guarantees.
| Therefore incomes do not suffer from the underwriting
| fees of insurers.
|
| This means that tontine payments typically start
| meaningfully higher than annuities at the outset even
| before the faster acceleration kicks in.
| tfehring wrote:
| I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say
| "tontines have no liabilities." Mechanically, the way
| that a tontine works (or at least the way that they
| worked historically) is that I give you a fixed amount of
| money today, and in exchange you promise me a series of
| payments that are contingent on my life and the lives of
| the others in the risk pool. That promised series of
| payments is a liability, as a matter of accounting but
| also for all other practical purposes. Maybe you have a
| different structure in mind, but I don't see a way to
| operate a tontine-like product without a balance sheet.
| s28l wrote:
| The risk profile is different. Yes, both have a payout that
| depends on your own mortality, but there are other risk
| factors to consider.
|
| An annuity is also a credit risk: if the counter-party goes
| under, then your payments will stop. Since most of the time
| the counter-party is a well-capitalized insurance company
| (potentially with an implicit government backstop), this
| risk is pretty small.
|
| On the other hand, a tontine has a risk profile that
| depends on the mortality of the other nominees who
| participate: your payout in a given year depends on the
| number of nominees still alive. Also, depending on how it's
| structured, there might be some market risk as well.
|
| From another perspective, for there to be an arbitrage
| opportunity, you'd need a way to create a synthetic annuity
| using a tontine (or vice-versa). But the risk profile of
| the tontine, which depends on the mortality of the other
| nominees, is hard to come by unless you are an insurance
| company. You can view a participant in a tontine as owning
| a certain life annuity as well as having sold the other
| participants a smaller life annuity. So each time one of
| them dies, you no longer have to pay that life annuity and
| can keep more of the income from the annuity you own.
| rundmc wrote:
| Insurers make a double profit by charging management fees
| and by mispricing the longevity risk which essentially
| means that those dying earlier generate excess profits for
| the insurer.
|
| In a tontine, those dying earlier generate excess income
| for the retirees. It's explained here:
| https://tontine.com/explainer
| tfehring wrote:
| I used to price annuities (but no longer have any
| affiliation or financial interest in the industry) and
| this isn't true IME - annuities are typically priced
| using best-estimate mortality rates. Outside of immediate
| annuities, which are a pretty small chunk of the
| business, mortality rates just wouldn't be a useful lever
| to increase profits, since the predominant decrement is
| generally lapse/surrender, not death. Annuities are
| profitable because insurers price to high target IRRs or
| equivalent metrics, build in enough fees or spread to
| achieve that IRR, and build in enough management levers
| (e.g. the ability to increase those fees/spread) that
| they can compensate for any mispricing after the fact.
| cryptonector wrote:
| I don't understand why tontines are illegal in the U.S.
| whichfawkes wrote:
| Too many murders?
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Probably judges got tired convicting geezers who committed
| murder to win the tontine.
| rundmc wrote:
| Tontines are perfectly legal. See:
| https://tontine.com/news/tontines-can-a-pension-this-good-
| be...
| clifdweller wrote:
| it was mostly because of fraud. if you are a banker seems
| quite a nice premise to sell your rich friends a tontine with
| them and a bunch of Bering sea crab fishermen in it.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| > This would encourage your loved ones to keep you alive until
| you reach that age.
|
| And encourage the insurance company to want you dead.
|
| I like the thought exploration and fear the incentives.
| diordiderot wrote:
| Insurance company isn't the beneficiary of excess.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| It's the other people in the tontine. So don't let that list
| leak I guess?
| brudgers wrote:
| That's basically an endowment policy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_policy
|
| Any insurance product someone is willing to buy exists.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Create a will that gives all your money to a bunch of charities,
| but not enough that they would kill for it.
|
| Then give your loved ones gifts while you are alive.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _This would encourage your loved ones to keep you alive until
| you reach that age._
|
| Why would they need external encouragement for that?
| lolsal wrote:
| Consider a scenario where you _don 't want to be alive_, like
| dementia, or cancer, etc.
| xg15 wrote:
| Uh, okay. Then I guess the scheme should motivate my family
| to keep me alive against my explicit will, even if it makes
| no medical sense and would only prolong my suffering. And
| that's supposed to be a good thing?
| groffee wrote:
| Unfortunately there's been a few cases where families have
| basically killed off older relatives to get their inheritance
| early.
|
| So conceptually reverse life insurance is a great idea, but I
| can't see how it'd work in practice.
| rundmc wrote:
| Because life insurance companies make profits by:
|
| a) overcharging you for covering the risk of you dying too early
| (death insurance is marketed as 'life' insurance)
|
| b) overcharging you for covering the risk of you living so long
| that you run out of money (fixed annuities).
|
| Disclosure: I am the founder of https://tontine.com which will
| shortly launch a lifetime income solution that will reward you
| for living longer and we are hiring.
| WFHRenaissance wrote:
| How long before you start killing customers because they're
| living too long?
| irq-1 wrote:
| As opposed to killing customers because their treatments cost
| too much? (Which happens everyday by denying coverage, unlike
| the fictional plot device of Tontine as a motive for murder.)
| WFHRenaissance wrote:
| As if multinational pharmaceutical companies don't kill
| their problematic customers _eye roll_
| rundmc wrote:
| Unlike insurance companies, we don't benefit from customers
| passing away.
|
| If customers are living longer, our algo's slows down the
| capital payouts which means that we earn fees on more assets
| for longer.
|
| Therefore it makes commercial sense for us to give customers
| tips to help them live longer.
|
| For example, I just found this today: https://academic.oup.co
| m/ageing/article/51/5/afac080/6572254...
| jfengel wrote:
| I will say I'm impressed that you secured the domain name. That
| word was precisely what came to mind upon reading this
| question. A tontine is precisely insurance against living too
| long.
| rundmc wrote:
| I still can't believe the price they quoted us for it.
| Sometimes it makes no sense to haggle.
| jaclaz wrote:
| Only as a reference on the history of tontines:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tontine
| papandada wrote:
| Well put, Oxford!
| rundmc wrote:
| Context: https://youtu.be/4AqKjjhET2k
| polishdude20 wrote:
| What sort of guarantee is there that this company will be
| around to pay this insurance our by the time I'm most likely to
| die? I'm 29, say I've got another 50 years left. Is there some
| insurance or assurance you can give in the event of the death
| of the company? A sort of meta-tontine?
| rundmc wrote:
| Firstly, ~125 years ago, there was a crash in the insurance
| industry. The insurers which offered tontines survived, all
| of the others disappeared.
|
| Secondly, the trust is managed by a board of trustees that
| have a fiduciary duty to look after the best interests of
| members rather than the best interest of shareholders.
|
| When the next crash of 2008 scale or worse occurs, would you
| prefer to be a general creditor of an insurer (which has a
| debt to equity ratio of ~12:1) or would you prefer to be a
| beneficiary of trust with no debt which manages assets like
| the Harvard or Yale endowments whilst being legally obliged
| to look after your best interest?
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Hmm that sounds not bad actually!
|
| How does it work say if I die before starting to take a
| monthly sum? Say I want to retire at 65 but I die at 40. I
| wouldn't get anything in that case.
|
| So the first hurdle to overcome is to actually reach
| retirement age? I guess pensions work the same way, we pay
| into a pension and if I die before retirement, goodbye
| pension.
|
| How are monthly amounts calculated? Is it, the more I put
| in the more I can get out monthly when I retire? Do I get
| paid more monthly as I get older because we're assuming
| more people in my "pool" have passed away?
|
| If I stop contributing after some time before I retire, do
| I still get a pension?
| obiefernandez wrote:
| Regarding hiring: Is your software written in Ruby on Rails?
| rundmc wrote:
| Haskell
| JoelMcCracken wrote:
| What is your overall stack like? Haskell dev here, always
| curious about commercial use.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > death insurance is marketed as 'life' insurance
|
| Looking at other insurance, naming after the thing insured
| (auto insurance, life insurance, motorcycle insurance) is
| pretty common, as is naming after the class of people who might
| want it (homeowner's insurance, renter's insurance) and the
| source/cause/type of loss insured against (flood insurance,
| malpractice insurance).
|
| I don't think any of those is more fundamentally "correct", and
| they are all marketing tools.
| treis wrote:
| Because I want my family to be supported in the event that I die
| early. I don't really see much value in leaving them a prize for
| dying old.
| rundmc wrote:
| But if you live so long that you run out of money then you
| become a financial liability to your family. That's why
| longevity insurance makes sense.
| jfengel wrote:
| They don't need a prize for you dying old. But you yourself
| would benefit from insurance against outliving your savings.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Indeed. You're buying a put option on yourself to insure
| against a black swan event.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| Bostonian wrote:
| There exist fixed annuities that pay you $X annually as long as
| you live, which can be thought of as reverse life insurance.
|
| If you are rich and spend say $200K annually on yourself in
| retirement and buy an annuity that pays $300K annually, and you
| tell your heirs that the $100K excess will be given to them
| annually, that would create an incentive for them to keep you
| alive. If you are that rich, however, they might want you to die
| sooner to get access to your other assets.
| rundmc wrote:
| If you want your kids even more incentivised to take care of
| you and help you live healthier & longer, you need to turn
| yourself from a potential financial liability (the kids will
| have to support you if you run out of money) into an income
| generating asset by joining a Tontine (see
| https://tontine.com/explainer)
| SilasX wrote:
| Since it's reverse life insurance, I had this shower thought
| that the incentives should be the opposite. Like, for life
| insurance, you get discounts for factors that make you a low
| risk of dying. So for annuities, shouldn't you get bonuses for
| factors that make you a _higher_ risk for dying?
|
| "Yeah, I just want this annuity to ensure my financial future
| while I ride out my retirement as a skydiver..."
| Bostonian wrote:
| An "impaired risk annuity" AKA "medically underwritten
| immediate annuity" offers higher payments for annuitants in
| provably poor health.
| bckr wrote:
| I like that you're thinking differently but I don't see what the
| economic model is here. Then again, I don't understand normal
| life insurance either!
| tptacek wrote:
| Isn't this basically how social security, or, for that matter, a
| defined benefit pension works?
| staticman2 wrote:
| For one thing your loved ones don't have much influence on how
| long you live?
|
| For another you could just cut them out of the will if you die
| young?
|
| I don't know what problem such an insurance could solve.
|
| The best way to insure your kids and loved ones try to keep you
| alive is to behave in a way that will (hopefully) cause your kids
| and loved ones to like you.
| akramquraishi wrote:
| Insurance companies will be hiring contract killers to save their
| premiums.
| ttul wrote:
| It is very common to buy life insurance with a return-of-premium
| option. If you don't die before a certain age, you get back all
| of the premiums you paid into the plan. There's your incentive
| for longevity.
| gifjif wrote:
| Insurance in ANY form is gambling. Plain and simple. It is a bet
| that takes places. Just framed in a more flowery language
| compared to a traditional betting statement "If I win you pay me
| x, if you win I pay X".
|
| Insurance company: " Pay me $xxx per month, if something happens
| to you, we will pay you X"
|
| You may benefit i.e your insurance claim is more than the
| premiums you have paid, or you can loose out by paying more
| insurance over a time period than the claim. Or simply loose all
| together where you keep paying and you never get the opportunity
| to claim.
|
| The insurance company operates like a casino, probability is
| calculated so it always earns more than it looses.
| francisofascii wrote:
| Actually, insurance if done properly is the opposite of
| gambling for the person buying the insurance. You are paying a
| small fee to not have to gamble.
| jfengel wrote:
| Insurance is hedging risk. The goal is not to make a profit;
| the goal is to cut your losses.
|
| You don't "win" by dying young and getting an insurance payout.
| You just lose less than you would without the insurance.
|
| If it's a bet, it's a bet you hope to lose. But in a large pool
| of people, the odds are that one of you will "win". Your
| descendants recoup the winnings, and the rest of you breathe a
| sigh of relief that it wasn't you.
|
| It's not unreasonable for a company to facilitate that, with a
| small but reasonable profit. Obviously there is a lot of
| opportunity for malfeasance and malpractice, simply because
| there's so much money involved, but the concept itself isn't
| inherently bad.
|
| Neither is a casino, necessarily, but a casino is offering only
| entertainment. There is no risk to you if you don't play. But
| in the case of life insurance (and other forms of insurance),
| you take that risk every day. If you're sufficiently well-off
| to self-insure, you shouldn't participate, because its offers
| no benefit. But it offers a genuine tangible benefit to those
| who cannot afford the risk and seek a hedge against it.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Insurance is like reverse gambling. The only similarity is that
| the house always wins in the long run.
|
| Unless your definition of gambling is so loose that not buying
| a lottery ticket is gambling.
| aynyc wrote:
| _This would encourage your loved ones to keep you alive until you
| reach that age._
|
| Besides insurance companies for profit motive aside, this might
| create a lot of unnecessary medical procedures to simply prolong
| someone's life, even if the quality is total shit.
| DennisP wrote:
| Could fix that by making assisted suicide an option for the
| patient. Patient has to live, and want to live.
| aynyc wrote:
| You have to assume the patient has mental capacity to make
| that decision. I saw first hand family member without DNR
| went through. I don't want that for anyone.
| DennisP wrote:
| Good point.
| MrTortoise wrote:
| surley brain in a jar is the more logical outcome?
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| There's a dual to that in life insurance, where it incentivizes
| procedures (or inaction) to shorten life.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| The Social Security scam in the US. Encourage people to eat
| poorly by making healthy food less subsidized compared corn
| filled garbage and watch as your workers spend a whole
| careers working while eating poorly to generate value only to
| die off at retirement as they start to collect on their hard
| earned effort.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| It's worth considering the existing form of "reverse life
| insurance" that already exists, which is simply selling life
| insurance policies. The counterparty in a two-party bet is always
| the reverse bet.
|
| Think of whether it's worth it from the perspective of the seller
| to insure only one person? Short answer is no, because that's
| extremely risky. When you sell insurance policies to thousands or
| millions of people instead, you can use actuarial statistics and
| finance the policies with bonds in such a way as to ensure you
| will make money, with the scale limited only to how many policies
| you can sell, independent of whether any specific person lives or
| dies.
|
| So why is life insurance worth it from the purchaser side? Many
| people will argue it isn't. You're virtually guaranteed to lose
| money. But the argument in favor is that an early death can be
| disastrous to others who depend on you and can't support
| themselves otherwise. It can be worth losing money to gain peace
| of mind. But really, that is the main argument. It's not a good
| investment. It's protection from disaster.
|
| The only real analog on the other side is the possibility that a
| person lives much longer than expected without being able to
| support themselves, leaving loves ones on the hook. But the best
| form of "insurance" against that happening is pensions, social
| safety nets, and the individuals themselves simply saving and
| investing well as long as they're still working. Whatever money
| you might have allocated toward reverse life insurance, just
| allocate toward appreciating assets that will generate income
| when the person you're reverse insuring stays alive.
| barbarbar wrote:
| In most cases the life insurance is for the loved ones to
| continue their life in a reasonable way in case you die from
| illness or accident. So despite they want to keep you alive that
| is not allways what happens. So the reverse may be "nice" but in
| case you die early it is a double penalty for the loved ones.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| You think that spouses are giving each other chocolates so that
| they will die off quicker?
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| > In particular, reverse life insurance would only pay out to
| your loved ones if you live beyond a certain age.
|
| But it pays the insurance company to make sure you die early. :(
| Rerarom wrote:
| Isn't this just private pension?
| Ishmaeli wrote:
| That's what annuities are designed to do.
|
| In life insurance, you pay the company a small periodic payment
| in exchange for a large lump sum payment if you die while the
| coverage is in force. If you die after paying just one premium,
| you win! If you live so long that you paid more in premium than
| the lump sum, you lose!
|
| With an annuity, you pay the company a large lump sum in exchange
| for a small periodic payment for the rest of your life. If you
| die after receiving just one payment, you lose! If you live so
| long that the company pays you more than your initial lump sum
| payment, you win!
| blairanderson wrote:
| yes and simple calculators are everywhere:
| https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calcul...
|
| Its basically 5% Annually... to which stock-people say "why not
| put into a dividend earning fund" and analysis paralysis kicks
| in...
| sp527 wrote:
| That strategy is even better when you factor in stepped up
| cost bases on inherited property.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| I went into that calculator and it does not say anything
| about inflation... Do annuities get wiped out by inflation
| (i.e. they'll keep paying me the agreed monthly amount, but
| unfortunately it's not going to be worth much)? If, then
| they're pretty crappy.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| There are instruments at least that used to exist (in the
| UK) called defined benefit pensions that effectively work
| as you describe. They have some level of inflation cap
| (typically between 3 and 9%) beyond which they are not
| inflation protected. I don't know if people can still get
| them, but many pensioners in the UK on private pensions
| have them.
| rundmc wrote:
| Fully agree. That's why tontine are so attractive, the
| income is expected to rise which may keep up and possibly
| surpass inflation.
| rundmc wrote:
| But the annuity only 'rewards' your longevity if you live 15-20
| years or more because that is the bare minimum it takes to get
| back your capital.
| imachine1980_ wrote:
| Yes, that's the point. if not is a ponsi scheme, or simple
| investment in bonds, the point is you make sure than you
| don't get whiout buck if you live till 100, not make maximun
| money, this service use actuarial probability to assurethat.
| bilsbie wrote:
| I just saw a similar idea for a gym membership. Expensive upfront
| cost but you get $5 dollars back every time you work out.
| abeppu wrote:
| I think a key issue is that people that want to go the gym
| don't want it to be crowded. Under the current model,
| supposedly gyms rely on people paying memberships but not
| going. But also, the people that are actually there also want
| it to be well under capacity so they don't have to wait for
| equipment, etc. So even if you're really confident that you
| would go to the gym often enough to recoup your costs, would
| you want to go to a gym where everyone else has an extra
| motivation to go?
| iso1631 wrote:
| And if you want to go to the gym more often, but things get
| in the way, this gives you a more concrete incentive to go
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > This would encourage your loved ones to keep you alive until
| you reach that age.
|
| If your loved ones love you in return that's an incentive for
| them to keep you alive as long as you are deriving value from
| life.
|
| If they don't, you might not want them to have an incentive to
| keep you alive to arbitrary age.
| LeroyRaz wrote:
| Isn't this a pension?
| rundmc wrote:
| If it's a DC pension such as a 401k or an IRA then they punish
| you for living longer because they once they run out that's it.
| NickRandom wrote:
| I'm not sure about what the concept is but tell me if this is
| more or less it -
|
| So you pay me (the insurer) a monthly premium and if you live to
| be 150 years old I pay you a million dollars and if you die
| earlier than that all I get is the money from the premiums? Ok,
| I'll take _that_ deal and wouldn 't have any problems getting
| reinsurance on it. Fantastic, write me a check.
|
| 150 y.o is a bit too high? Ok, no problem we'll make it 109
| years. I'll still take the deal (and your money).
|
| Lower that to you making it 40, 50 or 60 y.o to get the payout?
| No thanks. Well, not without a full medical and access to some
| actuarial tables :)
| the_only_law wrote:
| > Lower that to you making it 40, 50 or 60 y.o to get the
| payout? N
|
| How about 90? It's pretty old, and many people won't reach it,
| but it's not exactly super rare either.
|
| Then again, one topic that's popular on HN is age extending
| technology, if that ever became a realistic option you're
| screwed.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| Assuming public health doesn't collapse in the near future,
| and that's a real possibility, it seems like 85 is the new
| 70. That is, someone makes it to 85, you can say they had a
| long life, instead of the old three score and ten.
| NickRandom wrote:
| The percentage of people living past the age of 90 is much
| greater than it was in the neolithic era so the premiums
| would be priced appropriately. To 'win' all the insurer needs
| to do is ensure that payouts never exceed 49% of premiums
| received. Calculating the premiums payable on a million
| dollar policy with a cut-off of living beyond the age of 90
| is a dark art relegated to the world of Excel tables, COBOL,
| Fortran and AS400 but gut instinct tells me that the premiums
| would be at a level that most people with access to a
| calculator would go 'ah hell no, I'll stick my premiums in to
| a fixed deposit interest bearing account instead'.
|
| If you have ever seen life assurance policies that state
| somewhere in the fine print words to the effect of 'this is a
| whole of life policy and the premiums paid over the lifetime
| of this policy may exceed any expected payout' then congrats
| - You've just spotted the 'gotcha' of insurance.
| gergesh wrote:
| I think this is what investing is. Being genuine and not snarky
| here, but you can put money into a pool and save it and make more
| back over time, whether or not it's nominally "insurance".
| d--b wrote:
| This is what we call life insurance in France. It's quite common.
|
| An insurance that pays your loved ones if you die is called a
| "death insurance".
|
| An insurance that pays you if you live past a certain age is
| called "life insurance". It's basically a pension fund (except
| that your loved ones do not get any money you set aside if you
| die - so usually people take both life and death insurance)
| Ayesh wrote:
| we have "life insurance" (that pays on death), and "pension
| plans" that trickles money to your account until you eventually
| die. But the terms "death insurance" and "life insurance" (in
| French) make so much sense! Those are how I will call them from
| now on, no matter how telemarketers who call me name them.
| Someone wrote:
| "Live insurance" also makes sense. It means you get money
| when you lose your life, just as "car insurance" means you
| get money when you lose your car.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-01 23:01 UTC)