Posted by jax (66.25.36.240) on June 20, 2003 at 14:41:42:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cash Surrender posted by KEN YOUNG on June 20, 2003 at 11:26:06:
:
Ken, you are an idiot.
A life paid up at 65, is a whole life paid up at 65. At 100, the policy endows and you are finished.
A 20 pay life is a whole life paid up in 20 years. At 100 , the policy endows, etc,
Those policy act the same way as a whole life because they are whole life, just with a shorter premium paying period.
I notice you didn't say what happen to the policy "when you are finished at age 100".
Give it up Ken. This is like the Roth, IRA's, inflation, and all the other topics that you debated and was proven wrong. You are always wrong because you don't have the knowledge. I guess people who collect premiums, and sell mostly baby policies for 30, become brain dead. Why weren't with the professional side of the Prudential's field force? The ordinary offices??
It is obvious, they didn't want any debit agents. I can see why??
Just stick to bashing. That is the only thing that you do well?
BTW: Single premium is a whole life paid up with one single premium. Lillie is correct. The policies she sells are whole life with vary premium paying periods. Geez, you would think you would have known that!
Folks, I want to give you an example of Ken Young's logic and knowledge.
"Whole life DOES NOT REFER TO THE LENGTH OF TIME THE LIFE INSURANCE IS IN FORCE, IE, FOR YOUR WHOLE LIFE".-----Ken Young
" ALL POLICIES THAT ACCUMULATE CASH VALUES ARE NOT WHOLE LIFE POLICIES ALTHOUGH THE INUREDS ARE COVER FOR THEIR WHOLE LIFE."----Ken Young
In Ken's first statement he says that a whole life policy does not mean that you are covered for your whole life.
In Ken's second statement, he says that with cash value policies, you are covered for your whole life. Of course, being covered and the policy being in FORCE, means the same thing.
YOU LOSE AGAIN, KENNY # 02/25.1937!
"
Follow Ups: