When you refer to men and life expectancy are referring to how the insurance companies calculate the risks on adults over the age of 25 and the breakdown of their education levels?
Because a 17 year old would likely still be high school as such his death would be used in a different metric than what would be considered an "adult man". Because in that case a 107 year old man would be more relevant than a 17 year old teenager.
But then OT1 says this.
So is he wrong?
Or are we all wrong because this thread was about steroid use aging faces?
Life insurance actuarial tables normally end at age 100. Such a policy still in force would be a permanent insurance product (like whole life). At age 100 the policy "endows" and a check for the face value of the policy is paid out to the insured.
So a 107 year old man is no longer in the pool of insureds.
For a pool of insureds to be representative and relevant it needs to contain a wide range of participants of all ages. Those young are in better health than those older generally. Those who obtain a policy when they have health issue are rated (charged more or not insured at all) since they have too high a risk of dying. Health insurance works in a similar fashion.
Whether 17 or 47 it is the same insurance product. The cost of the insurance premium will be higher for the older person because he is likely to die sooner, thus a shorter period of time to accumulate the funds needed for payout.
Higher education levels, etc. resulting in lower premium would probably indicate an actuarial calculation which shows better healthcare than uneducated persons. Auto insurance companies often give discounts for students having higher GPA. Why? These kids must have statistically been shown to have fewer accidents.
