3 ms·
> 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 r
by the_only_law 4y ago
> 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.
- NickRandom 4y agoThe 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.
- JJMcJ 4y agoAssuming 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.