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:
Quote:
"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.
