Dave Ramey and Suze Orman are WRONG

There's more to wealth than money. Health and happiness are important, too.
This is the place to discuss organization, self-improvement, and success strategies.

Moderator: lvergon

Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:27 am

Dave Ramey and Suze Orman are WRONG

Postby albertduran » Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:28 am

I am a fan of Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman, but I think they are completely wrong about what they say about whole, universal, and permanent life insurance.

I've written a blog about it at [spam link removed since kombat quoted text in his reply]

Let me know what you think.

Posts: 1979
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Dave Ramey and Suze Orman are WRONG

Postby kombat » Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:24 am

The blog post doesn't really explain how this "new" type of policy addresses Dave's or Suze's concerns. In fact, it doesn't even really explain how this "new" policy works. Here's the only part of the post that even vaguely references how the policy is structured:

"An example of a cash value life insurance policy that is within the bounds of Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman’s restricts [sic] is Genworth Financial’s new universal life insurance policy that adds another variable for customers to control the premiums they pay.

Typically life insurance plans combine insurance coverage and tax deferred savings, but they cost more than the popular term life insurance. With this new universal plan the insured are allowed to guarantee the death benefit payments up to age 110."

Putting aside the awkward grammatical errors, all it says is this new policy "adds another variable" for consumers to control the premiums, and that the "death benefit payments" are guaranteed up to age 110.

What's this mystery "variable?" Why is having a death benefit payment guaranteed to age 110 worth the steep cost differential compared to term? Why would anyone want/need life insurance when they're 110 years old anyway? Does this new policy beat the principle argument Dave and Suze make against whole life policies - that is, that if you buy term and invest the difference, you'll end up with vastly more money overall? I can't tell - the blog post doesn't say.

I was tempted to delete this post as spam, but I'm leaving it here as it presents a good opportunity to review why whole life policies are terrible.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:14 pm
Location: Orygun

Re: Dave Ramey and Suze Orman are WRONG

Postby Jethro » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:54 pm

Leaving up only because kombat took the time to reply.
If life gives you tomatoes, make pico de gallo.

Posts: 1188
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Location: USA

Re: Dave Ramey and Suze Orman are WRONG

Postby Eagle » Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:32 am

I actually looked at the blog. I agree with kombat the explenation was somewhat fuzzy.

So Term Life is best? ;)
~ Eagle

Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: Dave Ramey and Suze Orman are WRONG

Postby VinTek » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:11 am

Ummm...guys...the blog belongs to an insurance brokerage. Click on the About Us link. They're fishing for clients.

Return to “Personal Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users