Often, when people are told they don’t have to carry their life insurance coverage anymore, they frequently say something like, “But I’ve invested into it all these years. I can’t just remove it. I didn’t have anything out of it yet.”

But the thing is we don’t state this about other insurances.

For instance, you have had this car you were driving ten whole years without a single accident and you sell it. You won’t say, “But I’ve invested into it all these years. I can’t just remove it.” Probably you would even feel kind of relieved that you had ten years without deductibles or dispatches.

Life coverage is different, because we’re all substantially partial to our lives.

It might seem strange, but you don’t buy life coverage to insure your life. It is meant to insure your financial losses that someone would undergo in case your life ends.

Below you have five questions that will help you define if you still need this insurance, what amount of it you might need, what kind of life coverage would be right for you.

Are you in need of life coverage?

Will anyone undergo financial loss if you die? If not, it means you don’t need to insure your life.

A great instance of this would be a superannuated couple with a stable source of pension income from their investments. Their income would go on in the same size, irrelevantly of either spouse’s death.Do you desire life insurance?

Even in case there won’t be essential financial loss undergone after your death, you might just prefer the idea of paying some income now to let your family or a favorite alms benefit after you die. Moreover, life coverage might be a great mode to return a little every month, and leave an essential money amount for charity.

What life coverage amount is right for you?

Think about your condition, and those who will undergo a financial loss in case you were to pass away today. What financial amount would let them to go on without undergoing such a disadvantage? This is the size of life coverage policy you need.

For how long will you need your life coverage?

Will that fiscal disadvantage always be there? Not actually. If you are in your best profitable years, and you are not around, it could be hard for your living spouse to save enough for a convenient pension.

But once superannuated, the family profit should be steady, in case the profit origin does not depend upon life of either. If this is your condition, you are only in need of insurance to cover the breach between present and pension.

What kind of life coverage is right for you?

Will the fiscal disadvantage after your death augment, or decline, with the lapse of time?

When the fiscal disadvantage is restricted to the breach years between present and pension, than the size of the loss declines every year as your pension savings get bigger. For such situation a temporary policy, or term insurance, is great.

But if you possess a prospering small business, your estate can be liable to estate taxes. As your estate’s value increases, the potential tax amenability gets greater. This fiscal disadvantage augments with the lapse time. If this is your situation, you should consider a permanent life insurance, like a universal policy.

There’s a school of thought that says, “the number don’t lie”. The assumption is that numbers are facts and facts are always true. So if someone counts the number of times something happens, this gives you a basis from which to estimate the probability of the same thing happening across a population. This is the basis of underwriting for insurance purposes. Teams of highly trained people called actuaries count how many traffic accidents there are. They break it down into the age, make and model of car, the age, gender and profession of the driver, the time of day, the weather conditions, and so on. We happily accept information that, in the first half of 2009, only 16,626 people were killed in crashes, a 7% drop as against the same period last year. We are not surprised when we read this proves that there are 1.15 deaths per 100 million miles driven. The facts are facts and must be true.

Except when we apply the same approach to health insurance, some people get upset. Perhaps it’s appropriate to be writing this at Halloween but the same actuaries have been counting the number of people who die from various diseases. For the purposes of this article, one of the main areas of interest has been the question of obesity. There are detailed numbers available across the country showing that people who have a high Body Mass Index (BMI) are more likely than thin people to die of heart disease. The medical evidence proves what are called “comorbidities”, i.e. the presence of two or more conditions which, more often than not, suggests a cause and effect at work, or that there’s an underlying vulnerability to both conditions. We are not so unhappy to accept a link between drug abuse and mental illness, but mention a possible link between body weight and disease and, suddenly, people are upset. People do not want to hear a link between their lifestyles and the probability of early death.

The reality is that adults with a BMI of 30 and above are either being turned down for health insurance or charged a higher premium. No matter how politically correct it may be to talk about obesity, insurance companies protect themselves by classifying obesity as a pre-existing condition justifying refusal or a premium loading. So welcome to baby Alex, a newcomer to Grand Junction. He’s four months old and breast-feeding. He’s a happy, bouncing baby weighing in at seventeen pounds. With a length of 25 inches, this puts him in the 99th percentile for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s height and weight charts for babies of the same age. So the health insurance company refused coverage. Their cut-off point is the 95 percentile. When you think about it, this is a dramatic piece of news. It seems you are never too young to be overweight. This is not something to be dealt with through an increase in health insurance rates. This is a blank refusal of coverage. At four months, the actuaries have already decided this baby is too big a risk to insure. The parents are naturally upset. Even though their pediatrician has no health concerns, they are talking about putting the baby on the Atkins diet. They may joke but this may be a real sign of change in the health insurance industry. There is no sentimentality here. After all, the numbers don’t lie, except the insurers changed their mind when the publicity hit. Alex is now insured. Some good news to end on.