Just asking, ...can one set auto billing through the bank account where it will auto deduct from the bank account?

I think credit card can.

I have tried those financial health check on insurance website. Of course their agenda is to tell me everything not enough and need more coverage, that's how they make money isn't it. Honestly even if I put 100k for life, critical illness and personal accident, I still think that 100k is nothing, but the premium is going to be extra 70-80%.

Ask yourself do you need those coverage? I learnt this from Singaporean financial blogger. If you can generate yourself say SGD100k p.a of free money every year, do you still need insurance which have to obey all their terms and conditions. Yes some of them are at that level. That's why they remove away l life, critical illness insurance and only have medical insurance. Their words it's better to continue received payout every year than one time payment.

Another thing I learned from them: never ask a barber if you need a haircut for obvious reasons.

And your assumption that agents aren't proficient in investing is why you can't comprehend with some sound and wiser advises i see in this forum.
As someone who's proficient and invested in many instruments that probably you didn't even understand, i can tell you the best investment return will always be from insurance, if you can understand what i mean.

Like i said 
even the richest people in the world leverage on insurance, because that's the smart way.
so are you smarter than these people?

Bruh my son just 5 years old. I dont expect to keep tied to 1 single policy/company until his retirement age.

I'm thinking when insurer ask for premium hike i would survey for other companies that gives similar or better protection at the similar price, take whichever cheaper.
As long as no serious illnessess that nrw company may reject right?

Standalone is not cheaper to hv than ilp?

BTW, I am not comparing which is cheaper all these while as it had been obvious that standalone is cheaper.
I just wanted to know the quantum of rate of increase between these 2 . Will standalone hv steeper increases than ilp due to standalone does not hv forced saving that can be used in future.

There is actually no debate about standalone ot ILP.
Both are of different products. Both caters fir different needs.

If there is any posting by me that perceived to be comparing ilp and standalone other than comparing the quantum of rate of increase between them. Then I am sorry.

I just wanted to know will there be steeper premium repricing of standalone when compared to ilp, especially after age 55 ?

I expected it to be quick and simple answers, ...like yes or no.
BTW, the one you just posted (as highlighted) is a simple answers.

Bro, maybe you too much money but for me wrong way to go about it. This is my real life story.

I can hand over free RM300 to the banks every few months but instead I didn't. I keep the RM300 for myself and invest it. All by watching my cost and yes this have been going for almost 10 years already. I found a legal way to bypass giving the banks free RM300. This saves me at least minimum RM10k already.

For me, I quote a youtuber, watch your cent and the dollars will take care of themselves. I am train to always watch the cost because of this quote, "Small holes can sink a mighty ship. Never underestimate the smell holes. Fees and cost matter" This quote I think I got from Jack Bogle/or those ETF forums when I first came across it. That's why I am very sensitive to cost and fees.

Thanks for the clarification...
Actually 1 month before i was offered this upgrade, my existing plan was subjected to additional insurance charge (due to rising medical cost) which i have just accepted to top up on monthly basis (coverage remains unchanged).

Since i have just accepted the insurance charge, is it possible for me to revert back to previous premium before insurance charge? Instead i enroll to this upgrade? Will this affect the existing benefits etc?

But if based on the guarantee offer letter to upgrade to A-Plus Health 2, it was reflected that the revised premium has factored in the additional insurance charge after my topped up, hence it feels like there is sudden spike in my premium contribution significantly…no doubt the upgrade is beneficial, but it is at significant cost to be incurred at my end.

But if based on the guarantee offer letter to upgrade to A-Plus Health 2, it was reflected that the revised premium has factored in the additional insurance charge after my topped up, hence it feels like there is sudden spike in my premium contribution significantly…no doubt the upgrade is beneficial, but it is at significant cost to be incurred at my end.

Timing issue not to your advantage. I think so happen your anniversary is earlier, maybe April?

Whereas someone else’s could be in August for example. So they would upgrade already, they will not get the repricing letter because it’s due in August.

That is why I explained earlier that you will be able to reduce the premium later due to your timing issue. There is no solution around this except to accept the offer then go back to aia to reduce the premium. It’s really hard to explain in words on the forum.

Anyway you have time to sort it out till end of this month. Aia allowing it until end of this month if not mistaken

u do aia loan?

I used to work in BNM, is why I am familiar, to a certain extent, about this subject matter. A better plan layout to spur competition for the industry is to phase out ILP and develop the yearly renewable term market. Disclose claim/profit ratios, and standardise/simplify YRT contract terms. The most competitive market out there is employee benefit. We need the competition we see in EB in the consumer space

I'll start with your EB question. The measure I use to gauge competitiveness: EB vs IL cost of insurance claims ratios, and on a bouquet basis (HSI, CI, Death/ADB, PA, others) - all ages, all coverage amounts & types, the margin is much lower for EB. E.g. It might be 75%/ 80% for EB whereas it might be half (50%) for IL. And on top of the profit margin padding in IL COI, you have unallocated premium charges, yearly policy fees, fund management charges to consider when purchasing IL. This is not uncommon knowledge. Its natural as EB is negotiated by brokers who can hawk the clients' historical experience to the highest bidder (cheapest price).

As for why phase IL out, you asked so I'm going to answer and I hope this post doesn't get taken down. Putting aside the high charges issue, IL's main issue in my opinion is the expectation it has placed on consumers (IL policyholders) to achieve a certain rate of investment return to ensure the policy is sustainable till end of term and that meets the other reasonable expectations of policyholders (e.g. savings element after meeting all ouflow charges till end of policy term). The issue is that this expectation has never been clearly communicated to policyholders. Customers do not know the minimum rate of yearly investment return needed to achieve the above objectives and the insurer's reasonable expectations of the IL policy's yearly investment return rate. The other main issue is that IL is usually sold by agents with the default setting of equity funds. Which in zaman dahulu kala, circa 2010, version had embedded 9% yearly return rates in their pricing. This rate has proven to be illusory judging by past KLCI (including dividends) performance and also the IL equity funds performances. If only IL policies were sold assuming 0% yearly investment return rates. This would be better, and fairer, because it gives consumers a clear eyed view of what is expected of him/her.

EY, KPMG and all other auditors do not audit for consumer fairness in every aspect of the insurer's operations in their signing off of financial statements . It is a true and fair view of financial statements audit based on compliance to audit standards and certain BNM regulations and even in that limited scope, I can show you how consumer fairness is not accounted for. Take your IL funds. IL funds are required to be audited on annual basis. Did you know that there are many insurers out there not reserving for 8% investment tax on unrealised gains. Accounting standards don't require this to be done. However, fairness, which is a much broader principle/consideration and for a product which is priced and traded daily, would require that reserves for tax on unrealised gains be set up to treat all customers fairly, across all time lines and not create a musical chairs situation with the last group of policyholders having to saddle this unrealised tax when those assets are liquidated. As for BNM, BNM does not do "audits" per se but does its own checks/reviews and it does not cover every aspect of an insurance company either and BNM has failed in many instances as well. The task of auditing, putting controls and checking controls for effectiveness lies with the respective line departments and their oversight departments such as compliance, risk management, audit.

This is not the only area regarding fairness where financial auditors, BNM have failed. GELM's estate issue is one example. Link below, if you wish to know more.

GELM Estate Issue

As for YRT standardisation, there are plenty of areas. The industry does not have a minimum basic standard contract with same wording, operationalisation and coverage for the main life types (e.g. accident, CI, HSI). Terms like "reasonable and customary charges", "medically necessary", "pre-existing condition" have many operational issues including disclosure/transparency which haven't been sorted out. Every insurer might have similar wordings but is operationalized differently. What is reasonable/customary for one insurer might not be so for others. For CI, come up with a basic product that has been tested with medical professionals, designed to ensure that it truly captures all the truly financially debilitating illnesses  and at the various necessary stages. Lot of medical professionals complain that CI covers things that shouldn't be covered as much and other sthat should be covered are not. As for HSI, push for high deductibles. In fact I think should ban no deductible policies and only sell min RM 5k deductible. The main issue for HSI is not inflation but a loss of insurance value proposition. Insurance can only work in low frequency and high severity setups. We have to many low severity, high frequency hospitalisation claims (RM 5k below). I suspect it is contributed mostly by dengue, respiratory illnesses that require hospitalisation for antibiotic shots. For the min 5K deductible policies, make sure there is no yearly, annual and inner limits, and it covers all claims, including pre hospitalisation, post hospitalisation, daycare etc. Right now, there is a lot of cross selling points between CI and HSI. This is cause U can tell consumers HSI doesn't cover expensive medication so have to take CI and there will be additional financial burdens. Find a way, if you decide to sell them together, that ensures that the design is comprehensive enough that consumers really do not have to fear being financially worse off due to disease/hospitalization.

I used to work in the Insurance/Takaful Supervision & Consumer/Market Conduct Department as an insurance analyst/supervisor

Btw, I haven't even touched on the other big issue. That of insurance companies being shadow bankers (fund managers) and not really insurance providers. Ironically, this was the case until IL got introduced. IL actually increased protection amounts but did it in a way that delivered poor consumer outcomes.

Participating products, the ones that contributed to issues like estate, were actually not for protection but an alternative to bank's FD

Male: 32, non smokers, my current CI only 35k, I currently survey for 300k coverage,  included early stage,  any plan suitable for me and what is premium mostly will cost?

Dunno. I would say, think about it when there is some life stage changes.

Every 3 to 5 years maybe. The problem is reviewing insurance is a complicated process. It's not as intuitive as changing postpaid plan.

AIA vitality is first and foremost a marketing tie-up. It is a separate AIA entity that runs this program and they have the right to share your data with all the partner entities. This is another major red flag - I'm not sure if AIA vitality has a clause that allows policyholdes to opt out of the data sharing, if there isn't one it is a breach of BNM's policy on Management of Customer Information and Permitted Disclosure. They are selling your data and financing the rewards from the money they get from the partners. It was never really about reducing claims ratio and passing the savings to consumers. It is another money making machine AIA is trying to churn. If you truly wanted to pass the savings, just let AIA's actuarial do the product design and pricing and put it in the main contract policy benefits. Right now it is so confusing for the consumer. How many are actually aware that it is run by a separate entity?

Btw, as I've mentioned before life insurance is really a profitable business. It is a cash cow. Never been about passing savings to consumers or making them healthier

Well, when we were on a property buying spree about 10 years ago (before all the rules about additional taxes etc came in - wife and I are based in Singapore and Australia), we took out mortgage insurance for some of the properties (the ones with a higher value) but because later, we ended up paying off the properties by the time they TOP (using progressive payment schemes), we stopped buying mortgage insurance.

You are right. They did ask to see our financials and it was very thorough, including the health check up.