This clip from Suze Orman rubbishes variable life (universal life, with a high investment component) and promotes term insurance. But listen carefully, in this case she promotes level term insurance to have in place until 'your youngest child is 23'. It's only a brief piece but already you can see some important assumptions at work.
1) That universal life is very common in the US (it isn't here) and that life and investment should not mix. This debate was fought and won, largely, by the term-and-invest-the-rest party about 20 years ago here.
2) But that term insurance means level term - so don't get hung up on the idea that term should always mean yearly renewable, and also don't get hung up on the idea that you'll be cancelling your life cover in three years time - if you are going to have it until your youngest child is 23 then that's still quite a while, and you might as well make the premium level
3) 23? What's with that? Slow through varsity? Or just two years 'safety'.
Comments