since it's a standalone policy (perhaps this could be a traditional plan), i don't think he could upgrade it. maybe you could get an additional policy to improve your coverage.

logically thinking, when you don't need to pay co-insurance, do you think the premium should be higher compared to when co-in is involved? the question is, do you pay co-insurance more frequent or premium? the answer is of course premium since you are paying it monthly/quarterly/half-yearly or yearly. so in the long run, which one do you think you will save more?

not necessarily true?! fact: all insurance companies are here to make profit. they are not charity organisations but very much profit-oriented. furthermore, all insurance companies are governed by BN and definitely there're strict framework for all of them to abide too and thus the difference between one product to another product from other companies is pretty minimal. if company A is providing no co-insurance and claim that its insurance charge is lower than that who incur co-insurance, it's definitely bull$xit.

the blogger who shared the info merely made comparison based on some facts that he gathered from product brochures. it doesn't give a fair and complete comparison with the actual figure that could only be found in the policy documents and whether or not he was comparing the latest products among all the companies is questionable. anyway, kudos for his effort in putting up the comparison of some sort but it is still way too vague and lack of credential.

This post has been edited by venven81: Nov 6 2011, 11:18 PM

wonder why some people complain PRU being expensive when the premium is pretty decent in most cases. my clients always complain to me the other way round. weird.....