Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

21 Pages « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Insurance Talk V7!, Your one stop Insurance Discussion

views
     
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 09:43 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(hksgmy @ Jun 16 2024, 09:32 AM)
Ah, I apologize if I struck a nerve, but a “what aboutism” argument isn’t going to make much headway in absolving your own behaviour.

Anyway, it’s clear I’ve said what I wish to say. This isn’t about you,  it the way you put forth your message.

If you feel this way is still the best way to serve your ideals in trying to achieve enlightenment for the uninitiated, then by all means, carry on.

You’re not here to change who you are based on the musings of an non-invested observer…

…but perhaps if you really wanted to help others and not just appear to be smarter than those you’re trying to help, you should.
*
Do you see me employing personal attacks against the characters of those who post? Or do I just stick to what I believe are the facts of the matter at hand? The fact that I'm just limiting my posts to my views on the particular products is good enough for me

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 09:45 AM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 10:15 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 16 2024, 09:22 AM)
Just my thought and believes, ...no cogent evidence, so it remains as a belief
*
Readers have every right to view things as they want to.
(thus hksgmy has every right to view things as he wanted to, thus he has every right to comment with words like as below)... yes, we all have this right. It is made evident by everyone

You use terms such as "argumentative, grating, quixotic quest, tragic demonstration of self grandiosity, navel gazing".

If this is how you choose to view it, by all means, it is your choice. It is also a choice, to view it as "outscoring the stupid, rather rescuing the clueless".
I can say, "I can assure you that is not my intention" but again, it is your choice whether to accept it or not.
( hksgmy had viewed and made his choice by using those "word and terms" in his post. Thus it is also your choice whether to accept it or not what he said) see above

It is also a choice open to everyone, to view my posts as points of views that can or may be taken into consideration by whomever, be it by agents, policyholders or the general public in whatever way they see fit. If there is something wrong, please feel free to point it out.
(So I am just here to point some of it out,).
So far, I've yet to see cogent arguments pointing to falsities in my posts.
( I don't see there are any falsities in your postings, ...as you got every right to believes what you posts are the truth.
The main question is that, Does those "truth of yours" be of any use to have that wrong doer (aia vitality programme) be reprimanded or asked to change by the authorities? thank you for pointing out that you can't see falsities in my postings. I would also like to point out that yes, it is of use. Policyholders can always use the information I've put forth to lodge complaints with the authorities, BNM and OFS and if they wished, to take AIA to court. It is up to them. You can choose to view it as ma fan, paiseh, no point etc. but you can also choose to view it otherwise

It is how we progress, by putting across the points we have and arguing them out.
like it pointed it out earlier, no one cares. As in arguing something that is
not proven in court, we don't have to discuss the merits of a case only after it has been brought up in court and adjudicated there. We have every right to discuss what we believe to be wrong prior to it
Not proven that the author has the full signed contract of that aia vitality programme. there was another poster who alleged that AIA vitality provided the option to withdraw consent for disclosure to third parties beyond what is necessary for provision of insurance policy benefits. I used the terms and conditions in website to prove that it was only limited to opting out of direct marketing . I don't need to have the full signed contract to make reasonable assertions. Rather this request to furnish full signed contract which shows ability to opt out of sharing data with third parties should be directed to the other poster, not me
not proven to been brought up to the authorities by the author himself and the authorities are taking action against the wrong doer.
( any one can make police reports but many would just ended up as NFA) I dont have to bring this up to the authorities myself. The purpose of my posting is to inform. It is up to the affected policyholders to take the action if they so desire it. My postings do not necessitate me going to the authorities myself

Without cogent evidence of these, it will remains to be speculative conspiracies theories eventhough you believes you had provided with cogent evidence here. I don't believe so. See above

Truth is not the domain of any one person.
( truth is not domain if there is cogent evidence that aia vitality programme had violiated the requirements of the requirements imposed by the authorities). I don't even know what this means

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 10:30 AM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 10:34 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 16 2024, 10:28 AM)
I think
You can continue to post
what you want, ...
For whatever intentions you wanted.

Just hope that the moderator(s) or any person(s) with the power over this thread have the same thinking as mine.

Good luck in your endeavour to want to see things changed with you beliefs and thinking.
*
Why are people so afraid of the right to reply? Do you see me thinking about the moderator or the person with the power over this thread to limit discussions? Do I come after you wishing your posts to be deleted?

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 10:43 AM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 10:47 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(YoungMan @ Jun 16 2024, 10:32 AM)
Hahaha, clearly someone must have feel their rice bowl affected by your post. Or as said before, "ruffled some feathers due to touching on some sacred cow".
*
There is clearly a clique in this thread and they try to regulate on what they deem acceptable to post
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 11:21 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 16 2024, 10:53 AM)
I think, they are not afraid to reply, perhaps does not wish to argue on some speculative conspiracy theories.
You have the right to think that it is not speculative conspiracy theory, but others may have other views too.
You have the right to think that it is worth the effort to bring it up what you did and are good to argue over them.... But others may just think it is of no use and a waste of their time.
You may think the things that you had brought up will be beneficial to others, ....but others may just don't care as they may not believes what you had posted had merits that is worthy of them to change their mind of what they wanted to hv...like joining vitality programme.

Hv you noticed posts can be deleted or removed here?
I hv seen many forummers got "suspended" too.

I hv no intention to see your post got deleted or you got suspended.....as I am still enjoying what you are doing here.
*
Yes, we can say anything we want. You've also said you can't see falsities in my posts but at the same time allege they are conspiracy theories.

There are ways to argue that would be acceptable to the reasonable person. All you have to do is furnish the evidence and people can decide on the strength of the evidence. I've given images of the online contract terms and conditions and these allegations of cross subsidization and muddling of product propositions are easily deducible from the write ups of the program itself. So far, no proper evidence is forthcoming from the side that views that there are no issues with these products.

Value of my posts, is up to the individual. And the forummers are not the only ones with views. The public reading it will be able to judge for themselves too

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 11:23 AM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 11:56 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 16 2024, 11:30 AM)
*
Yes, we can say anything we want. You've also said you can't see falsities in my posts but at the same time allege they are conspiracy theories.
because it has not been proven that it is wrong by those that can make real changes to it. (perhaps except only you) they are not conspiracy theories by default if they've not been proven by those who can make changes
There are ways to argue that would be acceptable to the reasonable person. All you have to do is furnish the evidence and people can decide on the strength of the evidence. I've given images of the online contract terms and conditions and these allegations of cross subsidization and muddling of product propositions are easily deducible from the write ups of the program itself. So far, no proper evidence is forthcoming from the side that views that there are no issues with this product.
if you think it has merits, then why not you use that info and evidence to bring it up to the one that has the power to change the wrong doer?? as I've said plenty of times, i don't have to do this just because I post. It is up to the reader to decide. The policyholders have locus not me
Value of my posts, is up to the individual. And the forummers are not the only ones with views. The public reading it will be able to judge for themselves too
that is why I am still enjoying your postings. Keep on spending your time, effort and energy in your postings. I liked it.

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 12:09 PM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 12:42 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 16 2024, 12:21 PM)
Conspiracy theories tend to be internally consistent and correlate with each other;[12] they are generally designed to resist falsification either by evidence against them or a lack of evidence for them.[13] They are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and absence of evidence for it are misinterpreted as evidence of its truth.
More...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

If you want to wait for the reader here to decide and take action after believing what you had posted here....(especially without you taking any action to inform the authorities but merely posting of your posts here to try to conince them to do it )
Good luck,....
*
Nothing that I've alleged is "resistant" to falsification by evidence against it or a lack of evidence.

I'm using the same so called sources of truth that you guys also use such as terms and conditions displayed on website and the product writeups therein. You don't see me telling posters until I get the exact terms and conditions you've signed up for either digital or physical copies, I'm not accepting the terms and conditions as stated in the website.

Affected readers/policyholders are free to validate everything I'm saying against their own sources such as the actual contract. So please, furnish the actual terms and conditions that prove my assertions wrong

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 12:47 PM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 01:01 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 16 2024, 12:48 PM)
No matter what reasons or disputes or disagreements you posted or are going to post.  Same conclusion from me. That is, ...
....If you want to wait for the reader here to decide and take action after believing what you had posted here....(especially without you taking any action to inform the authorities but merely posting of your posts here to try to convince them to do it )
Good luck,....
*
It is a very limited worldview to think that credibility can only be obtained by informing the authorities. I don't have locus, which is why this matter is best brought forward by affected parties. I believe readers are wise enough to judge the merits of the arguments solely by analysing them and not relying of superficial affectations such as "credibility". Credibility is in the eye of the beholder and highly subjective.

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 01:14 PM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 16 2024, 02:27 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 16 2024, 01:28 PM)
Perhaps you hv not been long here to notice that forummers had been warned of off topic discussions here

Even some posts that which i strong believes are related to insurance had been deleted too.

Many other things are ridiculous too...
Example, just example from my POV....
Asking readers here to decide and take action after believing what you had posted here....(especially without you taking any action to inform the authorities but merely posting of your posts here to try to convince them to do it )

Don't move the goal posts...just tell of more info regarding the wrong doing of Aia vitality programme NOT just about your disagreements about what others think about your thinking, intentions and the end results of what you wishes to see happened
*
All I can say is I'm informing. Not pushing/prodding people to take action (you seem more interested in seeing this happen than me, worried that my efforts in informing is and will be ultimately futile. I'm cool. Don't have to worry about me). That is their volition. Noted on the strange application of rules

Btw, when you guys want to reply/rebut me it is all good, but when I reply/rebut off topic. Very convenient. Clear double standards

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 05:22 PM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 17 2024, 01:50 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(hafizmamak85 @ Jun 15 2024, 09:40 PM)
Yes, I've alleged many bad things about AIA vitality but I believe you've misunderstood some of them:

Chief of your misunderstanding is that ive alleged that AIA is leaking your data. I've only said that AIA vitality has not provided members the ability to opt out of sharing personal data information with partners/affiliates who are not necessary for the provision of AIA vitality insurance policy benefits. AIA vitality does not seem to provide specific, voluntary, explicit, deliberate and revocable upon request consent for the sharing of personal data information with non-vital vitality partners/affiliates

It is a muddled insurance and marketing value proposition. The vitality insurance and marketing policy benefits are not financed solely from the RM 10 per month processing fee. I believe that this RM 10 per month might actually be the administration cost. The insurance and marketing policy benefits are financed from marketing tie ups and savings one might get from a potential "healthier cohort". There is a risk that non members will be subsidising vitality members under circumstances where the alleged "healthier cohort" and marketing tie-up propositions flounder. If the additional vitality insurance policy benefits cannot be financed successfully from the savings from the alleged "healthier cohort" and/or marketing tie-ups, everyone subscribing to the main product (both vitality and non vitality policyholders) will have to foot the additional bill via increases in the premium amount to maintain original profit margin or even if there in no premium adjustment, vitality members where the vitality proposition is floundering will have a lower profit margin compared to non vitality members where the margin is higher, thus giving rise to subsidization allegations

Non vitality members will lose out as they have the same ability to be in the alleged "healthier cohort" of vitality members but are not afforded the same enhanced benefit. Why must there be a marketing tie up to provide the enhanced vitality insurance policy benefits?

You can also view the terms and conditions for yourselves. It explicitly makes clear that AIA vitality has the right to revoke, augment vitality insurance policy benefits including accumulated points, insurance policy benefits in a manner that leaves the members worse off for whatever reason deemed fit by AIA. There is no contractual certainty as to your vitality insurance policy benefits including accrued ones. This is unlike the core insurance contract obligations.

As for the sarcasm in this thread, this is innate to quite a number of thread posters. I am not elucidating for them, but rather for the people who find worth in what I'm trying to convey. They (sarcastic thread posters) are quite frankly doing a stellar job of showing their true colours. I couldn't possibly have asked for more. This is the way.
*
I rest my case

Evidence finds that many wellness programs do not achieve cost savings or improve health outcomes

In the absence of cost savings, premiums would need to increase to cover the cost of the wellness rewards.

Maybe this person might meet the credibility standards of MUM and her ilk

Barbara Klever, MAAA, FSA

Chairperson, Individual & Small Group Markets Committee

American Academy of Actuaries


Attached File  Wellness_Program_Demo_Project_Comments_01142020.pdf ( 88.95k ) Number of downloads: 40


This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 17 2024, 02:23 PM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 17 2024, 02:45 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(victorian @ Jun 17 2024, 02:39 PM)
Kesian, haven’t move on
*
Thank you. Consumers will move you on
hafizmamak85
post Jun 17 2024, 03:38 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(guy3288 @ Jun 17 2024, 03:25 PM)
bro for posting like yours i wont find them offensive or need to be reprimanded.

the only thing i see is you lack the locus standi to complain
so after  presented the facts cukup.

many things in life is like that
people just believe in what they believe
until they learned.

example many  people buy Unit trusts
withdraw from EPF etc
dont really make money even lose money.
they will learn it themselves.

Vitamins and health supplements so many people taking
despite no medical proof of real benefits

you want to tell them not necessary  dont buy?
i wont.
*
I'm not posting here to complain. It is to inform. I'm doing this for the wider public. I'm here because I'm sorry to say, not to show off or anything, I'm one of the privileged few who've had the chance to peer into the machine to see how the sausage is made. I couldn't stomach what I witnessed and this is my way of giving back for my privilege. It is to warn. I'm not here to convince those who are hellbent on wanting to believe what they want to believe. That is their choice. So when people reply with what I perceive to be false information, I will try to correct it not only for their benefit, but most importantly, for the wider public. So, it not about presenting facts and cukup and leave the talking cock replies alone. After all, these posters viewed me initially as talking cock and that is why they replied

So, ask yourselves, what was it that this guy witnessed that was so bad that he is willing to put up with replies that are, as you put it, akin to "getting punched, slapped"? I can assure you i'm not doing this for my own jollies. Compared to what I witnessed, these replies are just little mosquito bites.

Btw, these posters replying seem to be going above and beyond to save face/defend these insurers and their products. I find it hard to believe that a number of them are just policyholders or disinterested observers, I find it more plausible that there are vested interests at stake motivating these asinine replies

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 17 2024, 04:57 PM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 17 2024, 11:05 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

Many consumers who distrust the insurance industry also believe firms are prioritising profit over customer welfare. One man aged 34-44 said: “Insurance companies go to great lengths to maximise their profits and minimise the odds of having to pay out to customers. It has nothing to do with protection and everything to do with profit over the welfare of people.”

Trust in the insurance industry falls to a new low



hafizmamak85
post Jun 18 2024, 11:01 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(cherroy @ Jun 18 2024, 10:34 AM)
Please create a new topic if wish to discuss on those non general insurance policy matter.

This is topic is more cater towards general public discussion on basic insurance policy matter, instead of talking on too deep or more advance level into pdpa, or distrust, even some may be conspiracy theory, or whether a person have right to post or not. There are too many this kind post on this lately, which most this topic readers many not interested nor understand.

Forum place doesn't have vested interest, and doesn't prohibit nor intention to promote any insurance.
But if one has negative view on insurance, it is nothing wrong also, but please create another new topic for that. It is another scope compared to this topic.

Thank you.
*
Thank you for the clarification. Since the thread is titled "your one stop insurance discussion" can I please implore the moderator to request that the title be modified to focus the discussion to, as you say, " general public discussion on basic insurance policy matter". I would also suggest that the other restrictions also be prominently highlighted at the start of the thread. Appreciate your consideration. cherroy

Can I get a yes or no on the above cherroy?

I'm just afraid that if another insurance thread is created, it will be removed due to duplicate topic issues. By implementing my suggestions, I can then create an insurance topic thread that will cover everything that can't be discussed within the "insurance talk v7" thread.

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 18 2024, 11:53 AM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 18 2024, 06:13 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(contestchris @ Jun 18 2024, 05:54 PM)
For non-Muslims, is there any catch for buying a pure protection life insurance takaful plan? Or does it work the same as a conventional insurance?
*
You have to ask yourselves, do you want to be subject to the Shariah council's decisions. This might include distributing risk fund surplus on your behalf to charities or to give discounts to other participants without your express consent. There are other issues as well.

Where at any time after a contract of family takaful under subparagraph (1) is entered, the licensed takaful operator becomes aware that a takaful participant no longer has a permissible takaful interest in the person covered, where there is no claim made or there is a claim made or on the maturity of such takaful certificate, as the case maybe, the licensed family takaful operator shall—
(a) pay to the takaful participant such moneys payable under the contract of family takaful as may be specified by the Bank; and
(b) upon such payment to the takaful participant, the contract of family takaful shall be deemed to be terminated.

(6) Subject to subparagraph (8), a person shall be deemed to have a permissible takaful interest in the person covered if that other
person is—
(a) his spouse or child;
(b) his ward under the age of majority at the time the person entered into the contract of takaful; © his employee; or
(d) a person on whom he is wholly or partly dependent for maintenance or education at the time he entered into the contract of takaful

If there is divorce, there might be uncertainty in how the contract operates. Esp husband wife policy

Some of the contracts even say this:

If you don’t have a permissible takaful interest
If we become aware that you don’t have the required
permissible takaful interest in a person covered we must
follow the guidelines of Bank Negara Malaysia. This may
mean that we may pay you an amount of money specified
by Bank Negara Malaysia, and when we make that payment, your certificate will be deemed to be terminated.

I'm not aware of any current BNM guideline that talks about this. So what that payment amount would be, I have no idea.

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 18 2024, 11:24 PM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 18 2024, 11:04 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(guy3288 @ Jun 18 2024, 10:25 PM)
whoa bro this  should be of interest to many.

so non muslims taking takaful plan must be careful
may lose benefits without knowing it?

the last para sounds scary...
?non muslims can be ejected any time and money returned?
please elaborate more on  that.

how about  Motor Takaful car insurance?
anything  special for non muslims to know?
*
Shariah rules, that I know of, don't discriminate between Muslims and non-muslims. I believe both Muslims and non Muslims need to know the difference between takaful and conventional insurance. It is a personal choice for both.

I did not imply anywhere that non-Muslims can be ejected any time from a takaful contract and only have their money returned. I merely pointed out that there are contract requirements such as permissible takaful interest, which, if not upheld throughout the term of the takaful contract, could result in uncertainty in the way the contract operates. So, a consumer, Muslim or non-muslim, should always ask and clarify with the agent the circumstances where permissible takaful interest would be deemed to not be there anymore and what would happen under those circumstances. I can't answer this as every TO is unique.

I'm not really aware of the differences between conventional motor and motor takaful other than the fund operations aspect. If not mistaken, the insurable interest for conventional motor and permissible takaful interest for motor takaful operate the same way.

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 18 2024, 11:22 PM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 19 2024, 09:54 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 19 2024, 09:27 AM)
Yes, thanks for confirming and reinforcing what I had been believing.
I just check with my agent... still as what had been told
*
I don't think this is right. Unless you are telling me this provision in the FSA is unlawful:

(1) A nominee, other than a nominee under subparagraph 5(1),
shall receive the policy moneys payable on the death of the policy owner as an executor and not solely as a beneficiary and any payment to the nominee shall form part of the estate of the deceased policy owner and be subject to his debts and the licensed insurer shall be discharged from liability in respect of the policy moneys paid

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 19 2024, 09:55 AM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 19 2024, 10:18 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(lifebalance @ Jun 19 2024, 10:04 AM)
Got to hate snake-oil ppl like you who spread misinformation by telling half-truth.

user posted image

Highlighting the above paragraph without mentioning what's the purpose of that paragraph with the intention to deceive ppl that clearly writes "Nominee other than nominee under subparagraph 5(1)"

What they are talking about is the "Payment of policy moneys where there is nomination".

doh.gif
*
The conversation thread so far has been focused on one particular example, i.e where the sister is the nominee.

The subparagraph which I quoted, which is 6(1) of the FSA , applies to a situation where the sister is the nominee. The sister as nominee does not make the policy a trust policy.

Therefore, the sister is an executor and not solely a beneficiary of any insurance proceeds which would form part of the estate of the deceased

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 19 2024, 10:21 AM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 19 2024, 10:38 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

Btw, there is way to circumvent this nomination and trustee issues. Just do an absolute/partial assignment. Say that you are doing it for love and unconditionally etc etc. Esp in this sister situation. I don't understand why more people are not talking about assignments.

Nowadays, got lot of non married couples with kids. Even between different religions which could cause a legal clash (if you get my drift). So why not employ some other stronger legal contracts in place?

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 19 2024, 10:45 AM
hafizmamak85
post Jun 19 2024, 10:58 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
463 posts

Joined: Nov 2009

QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 19 2024, 10:44 AM)
You mean to tell that the info from Tokyo marine is not right in the eye of the law??(unlawful)
*
This info you are highlighting from Tokio marine is fine. I can't find anything unlawful. I was referring to your statement about reinforcing or confirming your belief. Your belief, as in your initial belief, was that all money will go to the nominee. That is not true. It depends on whether it is a trust policy or not.

Also, let me put it this way, even under a trust policy, you are still governed by a trust, you are not the sole beneficiary. So a wife/mum will still be having to use the proceeds for the care of the childreb

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 20 2024, 02:19 PM

21 Pages « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0465sec    1.17    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 16th December 2025 - 04:17 PM