If I have AD&D through my employer, should I STILL purchase term life insurance?
Most likely, yes. AD&D is insurance against a specific type of peril.  Life insurance is, too, but there are fewer exceptions to payout.  I'd imagine that you'd have to die by accident, or be dismembered but not die, for it to pay out.  The exceptions in the policy are what you need to be concerned about. If loss of you (and your income) would be of financial hardship to your wife and your goals for your family, then you should consider life insurance. (If you do, consider having your wife buy the policy on you, and make sure it's clear that her funds were paying for it.  It may be possible to avoid having the payout go into your estate that way.) It probably does make sense for you to buy term life insurance separate from your employer, for a few reasons: There are a number of life insurance calculators on the web. Try two or three -- some of them ask different questions and can give you a range of answers regarding how much coverage you should have. Then take a look at some of the online quote sites -- there are a couple that don't require you to enter your personal information, just general age/health/zip code so you can get an accurate quote for a couple of different coverage levels without having to deal with a salesman yet. (It was my experience that these quotes were very close -- within $20/year -- of what I was quoted through an agent.)  Using this information, decide how much coverage you need and can afford. If you're a homeowner, and the insurance company with whom you have your homeowner's policy offers life insurance, call them up and get a quote. They may be able to give you a discount because of your existing relationship; sanity check this against what you got from the quotes website. I think that mbhunter hit the nail on the head regarding your question. I just want to add that having a policy that isn't sponsored by your employer is a good idea... employer policies are regulated by the federal government via ERISA. Independent policies are state regulated, and usually have better protections. Also, look for a policy that allows you to increase your coverage later without medical qualification so you don't need to overbuy insurance initially.
"Does your new job include life insurance?  Most ""professional"" positions *will*, making your old insurance a moot point.   That said, even if the answer is ""no"", **and** you really, really need to maintain some level of term life (ie, newborn kid and unemployed spouse)... You would **still** want to shop around rather than just automatically converting your former employer's plan.  ""Group"" is a nice-sounding way of saying ""the young and healthy subsidize the premiums of the old and sick""; if you're not old and/or chronically unhealthy... You can probably do better on your own." In your situation, it sounds like the only added benefit would be insurance continuance.  For employees who can't access short-term disability it is a critical protection against losing their job. I just want to emphasize that given that you are in a pretty decent employment situation. "If I was in your shoes I would have some term insurance, and it is pretty darn cheap at your age.   Your wife is dependent upon your income, and it will take sometime to transition from non-working to working.  As she could probably get a job doing anything, it will probably take many years to build up to the lifestyle she is accustomed.  She may never be able to obtain your salary. While she could spend down the amount you two have saved up for retirement, tax will have to be paid on any non-ROTH contributions.  The decisions for this have to be made within a year of death and are not easy.  I would not want to put my spouse through this.   Plus some day she would have to retire.  If she spends down a significant portion of the savings you have built, well that will need to be replenished and you probably know time is not on one's side when it comes to compounding.   Do you have to have 10x-15x times your earnings in insurance?  No.  Do you need to do a 20 year level term, No.  Perhaps a 10 year level term for like 5x your income.  Just something to ""bridge the gap"".  If you live, you will be much better off financially, and could probably drop the coverage.  If you don't you will not leave her sad and with difficult financial decisions; just sad." Term life insurance for a healthy 30 year old is a heck of a lot cheaper than for a 40 year old who's starting to break down (and who needs the coverage since he's got a spouse and kids). So, get a long term policy now while it's cheap. Buy term and invest the rest is in fact the easiest plan.  Just buy the term insurance based on your current and expected needs. Review those needs every few years, or after a life event (marriage, divorce, kids, buying a house...) For the invest the rest part: invest in your 401K, IRA or the equivalent. There are index funds, or age based funds that can help the inexperienced. Those index funds have low costs; the age based funds change as you get older.  The biggest issue with the whole life type products is that what your care about for the term insurance doesn't mean that the company  has a good investment program. You also want to have the ability to decide to change insurance companies or investment companies without impacting the other. "I don't know what the OP means when he says I want to invest in health insurance from now on so that I can use the policy after I retire. Generally, a health insurance policy covers costs incurred during the current calendar year (or specific period such as July 1 of one year through June 30 of the next year) and does not cover future periods. Indeed, many policies do not guarantee renewal when the current period ends (with exceptions for employer-provided coverage through COBRA in case employment ends). So investing in a health insurance policy meaning that you pay the premiums now, and the insurance company provides the policy in the distant future is  something that is new to me. Besides, what will the policy include? If someone had bought such a policy many years ago, say, before CAT scans and MRI were developed, would the policy cover such new developments? Or the policy would cover only those procedures, tests, and medications that are available when the policy is written and the insurance premiums start to be paid? The long-term health of the insurance company is also of some concern.  When something is offered to me with a lifetime guarantee, I skeptically ask, ""My lifetime or the device's life time or the company's lifetime?""" The insurance company is must assume you do have a preexisting condition you are unaware of.  The reason for that is that Affordable Care Act precludes the Insurance company from denying coverage of them if you do.  Insurance companies are businesses.  They are in business to make money(unless you have a nonprofit insurer).  They can not do that if you can buy insurance only when you need for them to pay out.  So even though you may not have a preexisting condition, they are precluded from requiring an examination that would detect the most expensive preexisting conditions (hidden cancers, neurological, autoimmune disorders).  So the companies must do what takes business sense and either deny you coverage or charge a rate that covers the risk they would be forced to take.   In your question on travel there was a response that suggested you get international health insurance instead of travel health insurance that would be considered credible coverage.  You are trying to save money which on a personal level is a good idea.  However that is against the societal and business need that you maintain health coverage during your healthy times to cover the costs of those who need expensive treatment.  So you will be monetarily penalized should you choose to reenter the society of insured people.  Once you have paid the higher rate for up to 18 months you should be able to get a better policy for people who have had continuous coverage.  Alternately you may be lucky enough to start working for a company that provides health insurance with out requiring continuous coverage. "There are two types of insurance: whole life and term. I don't recommend whole life insurance, because you are insuring against something that will happen, your death. Maybe you could buy it if members of your family have a history of outliving the averages. This is called ""adverse selection."" Term is different: it insures against your UNTIMELY death. Many people I know take term insurance for the X years until their last child leaves college, or some other well defined ""term."" They don't want to die before this term but will be satisfied with the insurance as a ""consolation"" prize." "The short answer is ""No"". There a 2 ways to get cash from a life insurance policy.  If the policy has cash value greater than the surrender value, then the difference can be borrowed, but will generally increase premiums in the future.   The other method, available on many term policies allows the owner to receive part of the death benefit if the insured has a physician willing to certify that he/she will probably pass away within a 12 month period.  Several carriers also offer cash benefits for critical care." I am of the strong opinion that life insurance should be purchased as a term product and nothing more. The internal expense is usually high, the returns, poor and the product disclosure is often incomprehensible. The only purpose Cash Value Life Insurance serves, in my opinion, is to fund the retirement and college educations of those selling it. How will your employer treat your pay and benefits status while you're on leave?   Disability income coverage and leave policies work in tandem to solve very different problems.  Disability income coverage covers your income, leave policies guarantee your status as an employee.   Typically, STD coverage requires an actual loss of income and will offset it's stated benefit for any income you're receiving.  In general you can't begin a STD claim after the 7 day waiting period and also draw income from vacation or sick time.  Also, typically STD will cover some percentage of your covered pay (sometimes including commission/bonus income) up to some weekly maximum. FLMA requires employers to allow certain amounts of time for certain types of leave.  FMLA is not necessarily an income replacement tool like STD coverage.   Contrary to your post it's my understanding that if sick and vacation time accrue in to a single PTO bucket your employer is prohibited from requiring employees to exhaust accrued time prior to beginning FMLA leave. In general, you're not missing anything because the point of FMLA is to guarantee your job and status as an employee from a benefits perspective. Benefits language from the Department of Labor Website A covered employer is required to maintain group health insurance coverage, including family coverage, for an employee on FMLA leave on the same terms as if the employee continued to work. "There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of ""Insurance"" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of ""insurance"", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force.  Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned.  They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation.  IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today." "I have an answer and a few comments. Back to the basics:  Insurance is purchased to provide protection in case of a loss. It sounds as though you are doing well, from a financial perspective. If you have $0 of financial obligations (loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc.) and you are comfortable with the amount that would be passed on to your heirs, then you DO NOT NEED LIFE INSURANCE. Life insurance is PROTECTION for your heirs so that they can pay off debts and pay for necessities, if you are the ""bread-winner"" and your assets won't be enough. That's all. Life insurance should never be viewed as an investment vehicle. Some policies allow you to invest in funds of your choosing, but the fees charged by the insurance company are usually high. Higher than you might find elsewhere. To answer your other question: I think NY Life is a great life insurance company. They are a mutual company, which is better in my opinion than a stock company because they are okay with holding extra capital. This means they are more likely to have the money to pay all of their claims in a specific period, which shows in their ratings: http://www.newyorklife.com/about/what-rating-agencies-say Whereas public companies will yield a lower return to their stock holders if they are just sitting on additional capital and not paying it back to their stock holders." The reason that I and many others recommend term rather than permanent life insurance is that the expenses charged for investing through permanent life insurance are so high. Everyone was alluding to that truth in their comments above, but the actual numbers would astound you. The commission that your agent receives for your purchase can be as high as the entire first year of premiums that you pay. (Only on the whole life portion).  Instead you could get a term life policy from a company like USAA (I mention them because they are very competitive, so compare your other quotes to them) for $500k at a cost of about $30/month on a 30 year term. Don't take my word for it, get quotes on the Internet and consider the cost savings. Ask this salesman, ahem, I mean advisor, what kind of commission he will earn over the lifetime of your investment. He won't give you a straight answer. He'll talk about tax advantages as if there aren't better retirement accounts that were designed to be retirement accounts. Or buy it from him, it's only money. There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants.