It had been discussed before, but not sure how to find it in Lyn.. perhaps you can help?

Of course the person why buys the insurance is at an disadvantage. Insurance is just a money game. The fact of the matter is that we know that a major portion of the fees we pay goes to the agent. This should already have alert you what the actual product is actually worth. If insurance companies are serious about financial management they should have at least cut off the agent part. Insurance can always be sold through internet.

Please tell those people who have benefitted from an insurance policy and claimed hundreds of thousands because of the death of their loved ones and tell me they are at a disadvantage. Please also tell them its all just a money game. Also, please tell them that they can somehow manage to 'stumble' upon various insurance policies by 15 insurance companies suiting different needs and manage to purchase for themselves a policy without the help of an agent to explain the various intricacies and complexities involving an insurance policy. Dude, I think you are missing the point.

1. what if the family does not know/totally forgot what insurance the deceased bought?
2. what if the family are all noobs who do not know anything about claims?

Ok lor, insurance company untung, no need pay anything cos no one go claim

Which is why it is always a good idea to let the beneficiary know where you keep the policy. At least let them know that they are the beneficiary.

No 2 is invalid. .. you dont have to worry. People always know how to get money if they know they are the beneficiary.

The fact is that it is a money game. If you say that it is not a money game, you really do not know what you are talking about. After all, bottom line is about profits. This is a game of probability. To say otherwise shows you are probably not trustworthy as a agent.

Benefited? The chances of benefit is like striking lottery. So based on your logic, I should go and buy lottery?

Well. I think people are educated enough to know what they want. What is there to explain for a insurance policy. They are pretty standard. People can always read the insurance coverage online and if they are satisfied with the terms and condition, they just purchase the policy. No need to go through Agent. A lot of money saved. That is the real meaning of financial planning. Paying the lowest price for the same product. What is so difficult about insurance. I am pretty sure there are many "non agents" out there who probably know about insurance. The bottom line is very simple. Choose the insurance company which is reliable and also offer the best price for an insurance policy. Buying through agent means that we know that the insurance is probably not worth the price being paid for because a huge chunk of the insurance goes to the agent. The thing is that every agent will definitely bad mouth other insurance company because they want to achieve the sales. So saying that insurance agent will give you the full picture is definitely wrong in the first place.

Bottom line is that there is no need for an insurance policy in the first place if a person has good financial management skills because the fact is that insurance companies make a profit and theoretically, we could have saved on that profit if we did not buy the insurance policy. To argue otherwise shows that you are probably dishonest.

At least show some honesty as an Agent. From your reply, you are either brainwashed or you are just conning the next victim.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Sep 10 2013, 05:37 PM

Insurance is a pool of fund that compensate the unfortunate one.
For one "benefit" from the insurance, then there may be 5 or 10 or even more other that do not "benefit" from it.
Insurance use the pool of fund to "benefit" the unfortunate one, aka the rest 5 or 10 people's premium are actually paying for it.

A simple illustration, there is average probability that 1 out of 100 people died prematurely, before 40.
So you take in 100 customer premium of 1k, that enable to payout for 1 died at 100k to cover died before 40.

But at this ratio, insurance may not able to make any money.
So insurance company can set the premium become 1.2k, by then there is profit to be made already.

Insurance is not a charity organisation that make people "benefit" from it.

Personally, I would refrain from the use of term "benefit".
What is so "benefit" about when unfortunate situation occur (dead, accident etc)?
Instead a better word should be compensate the loss of income/money due to xyz reason, whereby insurance as a pool of fund can compensate, and help in financially.

So far, I see more agent talk about wonder of own insurance try to sell (love you family, then must buy insurance, risk free, can benefit from insurance etc No offence), (while some small percentage may not even understand properly what they are selling as well or details of the policy ) instead make comparison on various policy.
If the agent is indeed explain properly and compare and listen to client needs, then whatever agent earn from the commission is fair enough.

I just wish there are no insurance agents in this world and my life will be more peaceful.

Most of my insurance policies are bought not because of needs, but because of relationship. Have to give face to friends and relatives (and also friends and relatives of my business associates)

The business can thrive because they use relationship to sell. Very close to MLM style. If I have no friends and relatives who are insurance agents, I don't think I will spend so much on insurance.

Yes. I have PRS license with Kenanga (previously ING Funds Bhd.)

In some countries, insurance agents are not required. Their peoples knows that insurance is a needs. If they want to buy insurance, they direct go to the branches. If they don't understand, they heed advice from the Financial Planner with charges. Insurance companies don't even have to pay commission to agents to do hard selling.

In Malaysia, many of us don't even know how important insurance is. Some more 80% of agents are doing hard sell without adequate knowledge. So people don't even bother to listen. In most cases peoples are "forced" to buy insurance without knowing what they have bought.

When we want to buy insurance, "support" is a grave mistake to start with. Insurance is not something we can see its functions until unfortunate event happened to us. When you buy insurance because of relationship, most likely you can never learn about how the insurance can help you, or you may not know whether the policy you bought can help you to survive a financial crisis when an unfortunate event really happens.

Some people think that buying insurance makes their life more peaceful, while the others think that no insurance agents makes their life more peaceful. None of them is wrong. We have the right to define what our peaceful life is, don't we? For me, no "relationship" selling makes my life peaceful. If everyone buys insurance because of relationship, then I gotta eat shit!

I have PM u

Help me understand how complicated life insurance is, as made out by some here.

I thought life is about death, illness, accident, disability and dismemberment and insurance companies being in business for a hundred years and more would have basic coverage for life, illness, accident and hospital care.

What is so complicated?

Are insurance agents simply making a mountain out of a mole in their selling?

Hi,

Sorry I didn't receive your PM. Would you mind PM me once again?
Alternatively you can send to my email at cheahyang.lim@aia-premier.com.my or cheahyang_0@hotmail.com


Regards,
Gavin Lim from AIA Bhd.

Alredy PM today

http://digital.asiaone.com/Health/News/Sto...831-234887.html


She has 3 policies, but no coverage

42-year-old woman diagnosed with early breast cancer says gaps in her insurance policy were not explained to her. -TNP

Tue, Aug 31, 2010
The New Paper

WITH three critical illness policies under her belt, she assumed her insurance coverage was comprehensive enough.

Ms Theresa Tan's policies with Prudential saw her dutifully forking out a total of $600 in insurance premiums every month.

She believed she had forked out about $77,000 for them over the years. But when it came to coverage, the mother of three, 42, thought wrong.

She was diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, or stage 0, in June.

That same month, she went through a 12-hour operation at Gleneagles Hospital to remove her right breast and to have reconstructive surgery done, using skin and fat from her stomach.

The operation and hospitalisation cost $30,000 and was covered by another insurance policy she had with Aviva.

Ms Tan then tried submitting her claim to Prudential this month for loss or potential loss of income.

She thought she could claim up to $100,000 for one policy and up to $107,000 for another policy.

But her claims were rejected by Prudential, which explained to her in a letter that her condition was non-invasive and "does not fulfil the definition of cancer".

Ms Tan's condition is known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in her right breast.

This is a condition where the cancer starts in the milk ducts of the breast. It was considered non-invasive at that stage as the cancer had not spread beyond the milk ducts into the surrounding breast tissue.

In Ms Tan's case, she had a mastectomy because the cancer cells were located in various parts of her breast.

Prudential's decision has surprised Ms Tan, especially since her family's medical history was known to her insurance agents.

Her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 19 years old. She subsequently died in 2003 after a long battle against cancer.

Her mother's illness was what made Ms Tan buy her first insurance policy when she was 22.

Said Ms Tan, who is the co-partner of nanzinc.com, an online portal set up with her friend, entrepreneur Nanz Chong-Komo: "Fortunately, my mum had a pension plan so her treatment was covered.

"But seeing what she went through and given I was not under pension, I wanted to make sure that I was provided for.

"I thought by buying three policies I was covering myself in every circumstance, but it didn't work out that way."

She claimed the gaps in her policy - it did not cover early stage cancer - was not explained to her by her insurance agents.

Neither was the option of a rider to supplement her existing policies offered.

----------------------------------------------------------
Any insurance agent care to explain before the masses start screaming cheat?

I cut off ties with all my friends that sell insurance except one.....36-25-34

http://www.insurancepenang.blogspot.com/p/...al-illness.html

Cancer definition in the 36 CI



Based on that experience all insurer came out with EARLY CI which pays 30% of the sum insured for DCIS conditions. However the policy will not be waived even if it is with a waiver attached.

For kidney definition, it is a failure of BOTH kidneys, and evidence of haemodialysis being needed.

This post has been edited by roystevenung: Sep 12 2013, 01:44 PM

Insurance.. Can claim when you are really "dying".. Diagnosed by cured.. Cannot claim.. Hahahaha..

Unless covered with early stage plan, else, yes, 36Critical illness = in critical condition only can claim.
And not to mention, there is this ''survival period'' thingy.