If one gets term insurance up till 60 years old, what happens if the person gets CI or ECI after 60?

Personally, I would recommend getting whole life insurance which also covers the various stages of critical illness so that you can still be protected from critical illnesses even after 60.

​

While term insurance helps to provide a high level of coverage at low cost, it may not be the best solution in the long term, given that it does not have any cash value and once you stop premium payment, you will be covered at all.

​

If you are going with term insurance and want to be covered for CI past 60, you can sign up for Great Eastern's Great Cancer Guard year, which will protect you against cancer (the most prevalent CI). It has a level premium, meaning your premium would not increase with age and is thus very attractive if you get it early. You can sign up for it here and right now there's 15% off first- premiums, which is a super good deal.

Hi anon,

​

You can't protect CI or early CI if you are not covered at the point when it strikes. So in the end, assuming that your intention is to have some level of CI cover regardless of which stage of life you are in, you really only have one of three options

• Get a term plan till the point you want to be covered
• Self insure ('BTIR' and what have you)
• Get a WL plan with a multiplier (the 'hybrid WL-term') (some WLs have no multiplier, but I find it more economical with a multiplier)

I'm sure one can see the issue with the first option. If you get a term plan for CI till 65, then what happens if you are diagnosed at 66? Likewise, if you get a term plan till 75, what if you are diagnosed at 76? This is endless. A term plan till 99? You can guess what the total premiums are (hint: not very cheap at all). If you claim, great. If you don't, it'll be a cash flow you need to factor for your retirement.

​

How about the 2nd option? This might be construed as BTIR. But there lies a few caveats, namely, you need to take over the role of the insurance company after your term ends. You are not an insurance company. Do you want that responsibility? Because the responsibility of the insurance company, is that no matter what happens, the money's going to be there. Market crash, black swan events, what have you, a $200K policy will result in a $200K claim. A $200K investment portfolio may drop to $150K at the wrong timing. Are you going to sell off at that timing? Or bet on a recovery? What if you are not in the right health to dictate what to do? So many loose ends to think about. Yet the insurers, they do this for hundreds of thousands of people. They manage millions and millions of dollars and they do this with a mindset that is almost perpetual since they deal with whole life plans, and they have been doing this for years. And they cannot be allowed to fail in their responsibilities to the policy holders. But there is a chance, no matter how small, that you might mess up your investments. Do you have that kind of feeling of responsibility that you can take over the insurer's job by yourself and do you think you can replicate what they do?

​

And anyway, I don't invest to claim. I invest to enjoy a better quality of life in retirement. Feels counter intuitive to have a giant pot of investments that you cannot touch because 'some day I might need it in the event of CI'.

​

We're down to the WL multiplier type of plans. I can say that if you get one with a higher multiplier, you'll greatly boost your coverage during your working years, which is also probably the years you need the most cover. The basic sum assured is what will stay with you into your retirement years, and any payout is better than no payout. The payout, really, is about providing options for you. While alternative treatment is not cheap by any means, having an extra $50K - $100K to tap on first without depleting your retirement nest egg may open up choices that you (or your family) would be hesitant about otherwise. Likewise, if you need to hire a helper for a bit (which you might not have planned for in retirement), you're going to have to pay out of pocket, and extra cash will come in useful.

​

An alternative is also to take a pure term (can be single payout or multipay) + a separate WL with a low multiplier. Either way, this provides higher CI coverage for income replacement when working, and some basic CI coverage in retirement.

​

TLDR; if you believe in CI cover into retirement, a WL is something you can definitely look at. Just make sure you don't neglect your coverage during your working years.