Even fully underwritten ones with a medical and history? That’s not what happens in the UK. The only common restriction is to not pay out on suicides, but the larger providers do pay out if a year has passed since the contract was written.
Bonus question: Does the US life industry use “insurance” rather than “assurance”?
A year is still a waiting period.
For that specific circumstance, yes. Otherwise not.
US practice is always “insurance”, never “assurance”.
Ever since the depredations of the marauding Crimson Assurance!!, that term has too much emotional baggage to be viewed positively. Shudder. 
Exactly. They don’t want someone taking out a large policy, then offing himself the next month. If the person has a heart attack and dies after a month, the policy should pay out (though the insurer might try to weasel and “discover” that the applicant lied about his health history, and therefore nullify the policy).
If I understand the “over 50” policies, basically the only way you “win” is if you die after 2-3 years of having the policy. Then you haven’t paid out that much money.
Are those “whole life” policies that build some cash value? Seems like they must be, since the premiums never increase.
Whole life is a LOT more expensive than term; the advantages being that the premiums don’t go up, you do build a little cash value, and some term policies simply terminate at age 70 or become insanely expensive (my husband’s policy just went up from 700 semi-annually to 1250 semi-annually because he turned 55).
Maybe they didn’t need life insurance until they got older. Which was almost the case for me. I had my first (and only) child at the age of 47, so that’s when I bought my first real life insurance policy. Since I also have a pre-existing condition it is very expensive – though still much cheaper than the AARP policy in this thread.
Yes, I recall reading the fine print on one of these “no questions asked” policies. If you die from something other than an accident within a year (i.e. health problem) then you will get limited or no payout. It’s a simple way to prevent someone from just buying the insurance when they know they’re about to kick off.
There are plenty of reasons not to have insurance. In my case, I had insurance through work. When I finished that job, I was over 55, healthy, and looking at what was available. To get anything even remotely reasonable and affordable I’d have to go on a crash diet. Fortunately, my wife can get me life insurance through her job until I’m 65, then she’s on her own. But… no kids to support, house is mostly paid off, we have over half a million in combined RRSPs (Canadian 401k equivalent), I have a pension and because of age differences, we chose 90% survivor option for her… Yes - there’s no reason for insurance when I’m 65.
Insurance as a long-term bet makes sense. when you’re 25 or 30, you have a family and a big mortgage, and the next bozo coming down the street could kill you… It’s a worthwhile bet for both you and the insurance company when stats say you have a very good chance of living over 50 years. When you’re 65 and odds say you have a good chance of snuffing it in 10 years, it’s a bad time to start making book - of course any company is going to charge you through the nose for a paltry payout.