UL: a scheme of ripoff?
The cost/benefit comparison between TL and UL policies can be very complicated. For a regular consumer, even if you have some finance background, you may miss the calculation because of "information asymmetry", i.e., you simply don't know some critical, relevant information, and are often shown only a portion of the entire picture.
That is why I tend to listen to the real experts.
Many unbiased consumerists/experts in personal financial planning (e.g., Suze Orman, who hosts a very popular show on CNBC) hold very strong opinion on UL, naming it as one of the top ripoff schemes in the market.
A fundamental problem with UL is that "it is based upon what is now commonly accepted as the flawed concept of bundling your protection dollars with your savings dollars (so it cost 2 to 10 times more than it could have and should have) and is based on outdated mortality tables (so it costs you even more)." The insurance companies and agents love UL because they generate much higher profit/commission from UL comparing with that from TL policies.
I think Civic's point is right on - Lift insurance is meant to provide protection when it is most needed (i.e., temporary in nature to most people), and it is not needed to be permanent. Generally speaking, it is never a bad idea to follow simple but basic principles in life.
I'd go with TL.
