WaPo: Life insurance estimates show risks of electing an older candidate

[MBS]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/27/electing-an-older-candidate-carries-risks-just-ask-life-insurance-industry/

.

. . So we priced life insurance for the leading Democrats. We examined the monthly cost of a term life insurance policy for 10 years — enough to cover the entirety of a two-term presidency — that would pay out the president’s annual salary of $400,000.
The price differences between the candidates were illuminating. The annual monthly fees for the Democratic candidates varied immensely — with Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) costing less than $20 per month to insure and Biden, former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and Sanders costing thousands per month. It’s not all about age: Warren, who is 70 but remarkably healthy, would cost dramatically less than her septuagenarian male counterparts.. . .

At first blush, the range is pretty remarkable. On the lower end of the spectrum were Buttigieg and Gabbard, both 38-year-olds whose estimated rates for $400,000 of coverage for 10 years were $18 and $16 monthly — roughly what you’d expect to pay for a matinee movie with a big Diet Coke. Costing slightly more were 59-year-old Sen. Amy Klobuchar, 70-year-old Warren and 62-year-old billionaire Tom Steyer, whose monthly rates ranged from $71 to $131 to $201 — what some might expect to spend on a nice dinner and a movie. But once you get into men in their later 70s with prior health issues, the costs skyrocket. The expected monthly payments for Biden, 77, Bloomberg, 78, and Sanders ranged from $1,060 to $1,269, more than 65 times the rate that Buttigieg and Gabbard would pay. The price of a policy for Trump when he was 69 in 2016 — when he, too, would have needed a 10-year policy to cover eight potential years in office — would have run $283 per month, somewhat higher than the comparably aged Warren but significantly less than the older Democratic menYet these figures surely understate the cost differential between the candidates. Insurance is complicated, after all. And underwriting a life insurance policy figures in individualized data far more granular than just age and gender. . .
. . . When we shared this information with Brian Barrett, a licensed agent with SelectQuote, he told us that Sanders and Bloomberg would probably not qualify for life insurance at all. But if they could get an insurer to sell them a policy, they should expect to pay a whopping $2,766 per month — almost 13 times as much as AIG Direct suggested Warren would pay and more than 160 times what Gabbard and Buttigieg would need to pay. Biden fared even worse. Having suffered both an aneurysm and an intracranial hemorrhage in the late 1980s, a person like Biden could expect to pay an estimated $3,978 per month if he was insurable at all, according to Barrett. In other words, the three oldest men running for the Democratic nomination cost more than two orders of magnitude more than the youngest candidates to insure.. .

Mark Twain famously said, “Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.” Supporters of Biden, Bloomberg and Sanders may not mind the risk and may decide that it doesn’t matter. But an insurance company would very much mind the risk associated with betting that any of these men will live another 10 years — let alone that they will remain mentally and physically capable over that time. (And our estimates don’t take into account the effects of the stress of being the president.) The estimated costs of insurance offer a window into how that risk escalates with age. To wit, it creeps up slowly as candidates age — until suddenly, the cost growth becomes exponential.It turns out that electing a 78-year-old man with prior health complications is not just a little bit riskier than electing a healthy 70-year-old woman. It is dramatically more so.

[emmaverybo]

1. Now you tell us. I'll take experience anyway.

[MisterFred]

7. Agreed. nt

[PuffedMica]

2. What are the risks of electing an inexperienced candidate the wrecks the system?

[thesquanderer]

3. So actuarially, Sanders is not really riskier than Biden or Bloomberg. Somehow...

...I don't think that will assuage Biden or Bloomberg supporters who say Sanders' health makes him too risky a choice.

[MrsCoffee]

4. Actuarially, but not actually.

So there’s that.

[Mister Ed]

5. The eventual running-mate choices of the candidates will be an important factor to me.

Last edited Sat Feb 29, 2020, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Especially the choices of the more elderly candidates.

John McCain, whether one liked him or not, was an able and experienced leader. Or so I would have thought, until he made a grifting imbecile like Sarah Palin his running mate. At his age, there was far too great a chance that his VP might become president. To put his country at such risk was an unwise move for McCain.

If either Biden or Sanders makes a choice like that heading into the convention, then I will be strongly and loudly advocating for someone else. If, instead, one of them should choose a running mate that I think would make an extraordinary president, then they will earn my strong approval.

[treestar]

6. This is why Bloomberg/Bernie is not a good choice

over Biden, in that he does not have the foreign policy experience and he is not even younger to overcome the age issue.

Warren, Klobuchar, or Mayor Peter would be better - they could use Biden as advisor on foreign policy. It's foreign policy that the Dotard has screwed up the most, so for that, I'd be willng to put up with Biden's age so long as he had a good VP.

[Darwin2019]

8. And how old is Trump?

Nobody ever mentions that.

[Butterflylady]

9. You have a very good point there.

[MarcA]

11. A good debate question for the 3 of them: Do you plan to serve only One Term?

If yes, then why should we vote for you to begin with? Of course if this question was
put to drumph, he would incoherently respond about his greatest health and having been
told that he had the best of all health and anything else is Democratic fake news.

[MBS]

12. yes, exactly.

IMO, the next president will need two terms, in peak mental and physical condition, to even begin to deal with the wreckage left by the current vandals in the White House.
Any plan that revolves around "picking a good VP" (who will not have received the same level of vetting as the presidential nominee) in case the president cannot serve two terms or (God forbid) cannot complete even the first term is IMO unacceptable, given the severity, complexity, number, and frequency of crises that are certain to await the next president.