Do you think it is important to have life insurance on a woman?

1. 79

   elayne001posted 10 years ago

   Do you think it is important to have life insurance on a woman?

   replyreport
2. 85

   DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years ago

   I would guess that depends on each person's individual situation.  If the woman is the main breadwinner, and there is a clause to pay off the mortgage if she dies, then perhaps.  Otherwise, no, not really. 
   
   In general, I think the entire concept of "life insurance" is bogus, anyway.  The thing about life is, we don't get out of it alive, so you cannot insure against the inevitable.
   They ought to call it a 'death expenses savings account" instead, for that is what it really is.  I actually wrote a Hub about this a year or so ago.. part of my series on corporate greed.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Silva Hayesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Life insurance is for the survivors, not the insured person.  I worked full time for over 40 years, plus was a mother, primary parent for 2 children, chief cook and bottle washer, as they say, chauffeur, etc. so my answer is Yes.

      replyreport
   2. 85

      DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, for the survivors, but unless you're wealthy enough to buy a mega-policy with a huge payout, the benefits won't last long enough to do much good; it will really not cover much more than the funeral expenses.& If that rich, you can 'self-insu

      replyreport
3. 76

   alancaster149posted 10 years ago

   Sounds a daft question here in the West.
   Both men  and women have life policies drawn up for them, as both men and women are likely to own property. By property I don't necessarily mean 'bricks and mortar'. 'Property' can mean anything from a few pieces of antique furniture to diamond rings such as owned by the actress Elizabeth Taylor, given her by her twice-over husband Richard Burton .
   Children might be property owners as well, girls as well as boys, heirs to fortunes, heirs to property or merely trust beneficiaries.
   Since early in the 20th Century when a woman marries - and this applies to most industrial nations - her property remains her own, to leave to anyone of her choice even before death (to avoid death duties).
   It still remains an odd question in Western eyes, although I daresay there are many who live her now would dearly love to reverse due process.(a legal term).

   replyreport
4. 84

   wychicposted 10 years ago

   It does seem like a strange question from my perspective, but I suppose it's a definite regional difference. I am the primary bread-winner, and would have life insurance if I could afford it because my husband is older and almost unemployable, but we have two minor children. A stay-at-home mother with minor children should also have life insurance, I'd think, because there would need to be funds for childcare, possibly housekeeping and other things she did that must now be paid for. If you don't have anyone relying on you, male or female, then there's really no need for life insurance.

   replyreport