From: debal89@sympatico.ca 
  
 "Dave"  wrote in message 
 news:bTx4f.25845$yS6.25074@clgrps12... 
 > 
 > You wouldn't have had coverage after 75, even if you'd elected to go 
 > to IRM. 
  
 Just checked my original CAR policy. At age 65, 90% of the policy 
 terminates and 10% continues for life as PUC. 
  
 > 
 > I'm thinking the way that they're saving money now (and are able to 
 > charge cheaper rates) is that they are no longer offering a "paid-up" 
 > component in the IRM.  You're insured until age 75, and if you never 
 > use the policy, then you've basically paid for someone else's 
 > benefits. 
  
 Agreed. It looks like they are saving on the PUC. 
  
 > 
 > Someone who was eligible for remaining with CAR or changing to IRM 
 > would likely be better off staying with CAR, as it leaves you the 
 > option of terminating the coverage at age 65 and taking the 10% 
 > payout, if your financial circumstances at the time necessitated it. 
  
  Yipe that's the way I looked at it. 65 = PUC for life or keep paying 
 premiums ( with a small dollar increase) until 75 for full coverage. I 
 expect to do the latter. 
  
 > 
 > Fellas like me who are still serving aren't being given the choice, 
 > and are being moved over to IRM.  Same coverage, cheaper premiums, but 
 > we'll never have a "paid-up" component to elect to receive. 
 > 
 > I'd say you made the right choice - or worded differently, you've made 
 > the choice which gives you a choice later on when you turn 65.  Your 
 > rates will be a little higher from here on, but you'll have an option 
 > down the road as to whether to collect the 10% at age 65, 
  
  
 or continue paying on the premise 
 > that you won't last another 10 years and the policy will see a payout 
 > to your beneficiaries. 
  
 Even with the premium increase it's still cheap insurance as far as I 
 can see. 
  
 > 
 > 
 Nice talking with you Dave 
  
 Allen 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)